Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[simonshack]

The Space Shuttle only put up certain portions of the ISS. For example the first portion of the ISS was launched on a Proton rocket.

What difference does that make, Larkness dear?

[Larkness]

I suppose it means nothing to you since you think nothing can get into orbit on a rocket. What do you think is up there anyway and how did it get there?

[simonshack]

I suppose it means nothing to you since you think nothing can get into orbit on a rocket. What do you think is up there anyway and how did it get there?

You obviously believe in the I$$. Therefore, as a Cluesforum member, you obviously need to read our thread dedicated to the I$$. Here it is:

Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$ : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720

[hoi.polloi]

I suppose it means nothing to you since you think nothing can get into orbit on a rocket. What do you think is up there anyway and how did it get there?

It is interesting that L[unar d]arkness found so much fault in your writings which could only be construed as two critiques (besides his/her/its own ignorance about the contradictions like "space radiation stops electronics" ).

1. The number of agencies claiming which technology is "proven" with doctored footage. i.e.; ESA has an inadequate vacuum chamber, just like NASA does; the ISS is said to have been constructed by multiple contractors rather than NASA's shuttle alone (I guess if they manged to hinge a large variety of military deals on their weak imagery, one would expect them to be touchy about such claims.)

~and~

2. Each of his/her/its and your points of logic around this 'particular':

The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself.

I disagree. A liquid fuel rocket engine typically has a system of pipes and valves which control the flow of fuel from the tank. The fuel is pumped or fed from a pressurized tank to the combustion chamber. Whether it burns or not, the resulting mixture of gases flows out of the nozzle creating thrust.

This seems to be the major discussion that has occurred over and over about how — precisely — the ignited fuel is exposed to a pure and relatively infinite vacuum while still being able to produce thrust within a pressurized area so close to the vacuum that it would weaken the impact of the reaction, explode the mechanism, or misplace the reaction, if not make it moot, as written about in the rocket nozzle documents anyone can find online. It sounds like a very touchy technology, what with rockets exploding on the pads, igniting the entire tubes and destroying them, simple errors causing disastrous spin outs, detonations, etc.; much cheaper to fake a useless technology for years. Also very lucrative to invent different versions of the same impossible technology so that nobody can critique any of the proprietary versions. Plasma, ion, fusion, "Formula X", dilithium pills crystals. Whatever.

What do the ISS and satellites give us, exactly? Blurry photographs that are worse than anything an airplane provides? Tang (TM)?

Now that SpaceX is involved, protecting the private sector once more from public incredulity (e.g.; discovering we may not be able to rise above the Karman line for long), it seems the NASA/ESA kinds of groups are under the impression that they don't need to improve their fakery since the cost of technology keeps going down and/or keeps getting more public. This leads me to a little hunch: a lot of the fakery (both by the old guard and the new) is to convince investors that the racket will still convince the public.

If anything, the rise of SpaceX is due to the rise of superior management of a scam. With luck, NASA/ESA will disappear from the "receipt of America" altogether. On second thought, I guess this doesn't change much but the pseudo-religious corporation people invest in.

Larkness asks: what is up there?

Indeed.

[brianv]

What do you think is up there? And how did it get there?

Religious brainwashing work good.

Whether it burns or not, the resulting mixture of gases flows out of the nozzle creating thrust.

NASA: Thrust is a Mechanical Force generated by Engines which moves an aircraft through the AIR.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrust1.html

I wonder how far a submarine would travel weren't it submerged or semi-submerged in WATER.

[simonshack]

With luck, NASA/ESA will disappear from the "receipt of America" altogether.

What a thought - imagine that: with the Grand Space Hoax now 'going private', our steady efforts here at Cluesforum may ultimately save American & European (+ Chinese, Indian, etc.) taxpayers a sizeable slice of their annual income tax "bill". One could assume that, once they realize this, regular donations will start coming our way - allowing us to plan ahead and implement ever more effective ways / methods of informing and activating people of good will towards restoring some sanity in this world.

NOTE (To those who don't appreciate certain forms of humor & irony): I'm only half-joking - as I have never been in this 'truth-seeking business' for the money. At times though / now and then, I find myself wishing we (all of us here) had some financial 'clout' to undertake all sorts of awereness-raising initiatives - and whatnot.

[feblogger]

I've read all the 39 pages of this thread, and, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't find the escape velocity as an argument.

We all learnt that a rocket has to gain the First Escape Velocity in order to leave the Earth's gravitation. But we don't speak of a truck having to have an "escape" velocity required to climb a hill, or an elevator's "escape" velocity to climb to the 68. floor. The truck and the elevator simply pull/push their way up to the destination. If there was a road, one could rich the Moon by a bike, right?

What is the point of talking about the escape velocity, if not because the pioneers of the rocket science, were aware that the rocket cannot push/pull in the vacuum, so they then concentrated into the rocket gaining the necessary velocity while in the atmosphere, in order to, just by the inertia alone, escape the Earth

[simonshack]

I've read all the 39 pages of this thread, and, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't find the escape velocity as an

argument
Dear Feblogger, welcome. I have mentioned the silly "escape velocity" concept fantasy (invented by Jules Verne back in 1865) on this other thread of the forum:

"Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, etc.)" > http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390316#p2390316

[feblogger]

I've read all the 39 pages of this thread, and, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't find the escape velocity as an

argument
Dear Feblogger, welcome. I have mentioned the silly "escape velocity" concept fantasy (invented by Jules Verne back in 1865) on this other thread of the forum:

"Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, etc.)" > http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2390316#p2390316

yes, thanks, this thread was the only one I really went through, but I see so many other great ones. Will check that one about the NASA (National Agency for Space Animation) too

[MagicFlame007]

Development of my Near Light Speed Engine.

The Goal.

Building an engine capable of traveling at the speed of light, eventually to be used for space exploration.

The Craft.

For this thought-experiment I had developed a craft that would hopefully take me all the way to the final stages of engine development, preferably without needing any alterations to the craft itself. The craft was very streamline indeed and with its special coating, virtually impervious to drag as it moved through the air. It also employed a secret technology that made it float slightly above any surface I put it on. This has resulted in a craft that needed only the slightest nudge to start moving.

The First Test Track.

With this being a thought-experiment, my budget was virtually unlimited (somewhat like NASA if you will). As such, I have built a 100 000 mile long track. The track consists of a completely straight trench, filled to the brim with water. I was hoping that this would be long enough to give me time to reach my ultimate goal; traveling at light speed or near enough as to make no difference.

First Engine.

For my first engine, I had managed to put together a 10 000 horsepower piston-powered beastie, to which I had attached a state of the art propeller. This propeller was fixed just below the surface of the water. This engine worked great right of the bat and ensured smooth and powerful acceleration. I was traveling at triple digit speeds in no time. There was however a problem I had not anticipated; there was a limit to how fast I could spin the propeller. At some point the high speed of the propeller caused the water it was spinning in to no longer act like a fluid so much as like a solid. This would obviously break the propeller time after time.

Second Engine.

I soon realized that while the water based propulsion worked great to get my craft going and actually achieve very high speeds, I was still very far of the mark to achieving my ultimate goal. I now moved the propeller out of the water and had it spin in the air instead. Initially this was a miserable failure. Although it did make the craft move slightly, it was very slow. It occurred to me that due to air being far less dense than water I needed to move a far greater VOLUME of it. I now attached a very large propeller (with a somewhat adjusted pitch to work better in air) and the results were amazing. I managed to get my craft traveling at very nearly the speed of sound! I was getting closer, but still had a long way to go. I was now running into a brand new problem. My craft was now moving so fast that it compressed air molecules ahead of it to the extent that the thrust from the propeller was not sufficient to overcome the drag (even with my special low drag coating). I had reached the maximum speed I would likely achieve with this configuration.

Third Engine.

The time had come to discard my trusty piston engine. I now fitted a brand new jet engine and started testing. My jet engine worked remarkably. Similar to the air screw propeller, it took in air from the front and ejected it out of the back to propel my craft forward. The main difference was that it would compress and mix the oxygen from the air from the atmosphere with fuel from the tank and then ignite it. This ignition caused the gas to expand greatly before being forced out of the back of the engine. This not only increased the VOLUME of air I was moving, but also the VELOCITY at which the air escaped from the back of the engine. This pressure wave would then push with great force against the air molecules in the atmosphere behind the craft. I was now capable of traveling at many times the speed of sound. Still this was not enough, since and old adversary had reared its ugly head; the drag from the air molecules rushing over the hull of my craft and engine was again imposing a speed limit. The faster I went the greater the drag would become, until it reached the point where it would go no faster. What was I to do?

The Second Test Track.

It was clear that the drag and back pressure of the air molecules would not be overcome, so they had to go. To this end I now built a huge dome over the entire track and used enormous pumps to remove all the air inside. I now had a vacuum containing no air molecules at all. It was so strange to see my craft moving (and traveling the entire length of the test track) with just the slightest push. There would clearly now be nothing to slow down my craft like before and better yet; none of the energy I put into it with my engines would be lost fighting the drag. I would no longer need to add energy to keep it moving, only to increase the speed.

Fourth Engine.

I realized that while my test track was now as close to ideal as I could want, none of my previous engines would function. First of all there was no oxygen available for any of them to work and secondly, there were no molecules to “push against” to create thrust. It was clear that an entirely new engine would be needed. Inspiration for this engine came to me when I threw a heavy piece of equipment away in frustration while working on the craft. Amazingly the craft started to move in the opposite direction! I grabbed another spanner and threw it in the same direction as the previous one. It was lighter than the previous item, but I threw it with far greater force. The craft accelerated even more and remarkably continued moving! I now constructed an engine actually somewhat similar to the jet engine from before, except that that it would need no internal turbines to compress the air molecules. What it did need however was fuel to burn, but the fuel would have to also contain its own oxygen, as none was available from the environment. This rocket engine worked beautifully. It was at first somewhat slow to accelerate in the vacuum, but conveniently all the “thrust” it produced would keep accelerating the craft. Although the rocket engine was highly successful and propelled the craft at never seen before speeds, it was very complex and rather scary. It also needed a lot of fuel to work for any length of time, seeing that I also had to carry all the oxygen I would need and that the propulsion method relied on basically throwing fuel particles (in gas form) out of the rear thrusters at the highest possible VELOCITY (Force = Mass x Velocity). This engine was promising, but I wanted something simpler and safer.

Fifth Engine.

I decided that, inside the vacuum, a rocket was not really required at all. Propulsion in a vacuum required me only to “throw” particles out of the back of the engine at the maximum VELOCITY I could possibly obtain. The one advantage of the rocket engine was that since all the fuel traveling with the craft would be traveling at the same speed as the craft and therefore, whenever I threw more particles out the back, my craft would continue to accelerate. Why was this happening? Well, it’s simple really. Since all particles of fuel would be traveling at the same speed as the craft, their inertia would be the same and in relation to the craft, essentially be perfectly at rest. Continuing to throw particles out of the back, has the result of further accelerating the craft!
My fifth engine therefore was a simple affair consisting of a bank of high capacity lithium polymer batteries powering a water pump capable of enormously accelerating water molecules! This was simply a variation of the well known high pressure car washers. This worked nearly as well as the rocket engine, but was not able to accelerate particles at the same VELOCITY as the rocket did. It mattered little though, as my aim was to reach light speed and how long it took to reach that speed was immaterial. Its main advantage was simplicity and that it posed few of the dangers associated with rockets. Furthermore I had better range with this engine, as I no longer had to carry my oxygen with me, only the fuel (and the batteries of course). I soon changed from using water as fuel to using heavier liquids. The effect of this would be the need for smaller fuel tanks for the same range.
Now I ran into my umpteenth “speed limit”; it seemed that once I reached the maximum VELOCITY of the particles thrown out the back of the engine, I would cease to accelerate further, no matter how hard I ran the engine. It was back to the drawing board if I was ever going to reach the speed of light (or thereabouts).

Sixth Engine.

I now constructed an ion gun. This contraption could accelerate heavy ion particles at VELOCITIES I had never seen before. This engine delivered even less thrust than the previous engines, but it would continue to accelerate beyond what any of the others did. The speed limit this time was the hypersonic speeds at which the ion gun could throw out those heavy ions. This was looking promising, but at this time I realized that my test track was woefully inadequate. While my craft was continuing to accelerate, I now started to run out of track! My craft would cover the 100 000 miles of track in short order and still be accelerating.

The Third Test Track.

I decided that to reach my goal of traveling at light speed, I was going to have to abandon my test track altogether and actually send my little craft into outer space! I now built a runway from where my craft would launch, knowing that a vertical launch would be ridiculous. Why would I want to fight gravity right from the start when I could use far simpler tired and trusted methods (like wings) to gain altitude and save the “hardcore” fuel-guzzling rockets for later?

Seventh Engine.

For this engine I was not going to rely on just a single technology. In fact, it was not going to be a single engine at all. It would have several stages that would power it, depending on the environment it was operating in at the time. Stage one would simply be the same jet engine as before (Third Engine). This would be employed to initially lift my craft off the ground and, using standard aerodynamic methods lift it to the maximum height and speed that the jet engine would allow. Now my rocket engine would take over and continue to accelerate my trusty little craft to a speed where it might escape the pull of earth’s gravity. I noted that while still traveling inside the atmosphere the rocket would generate vast amounts of thrust, far more than it had in the vacuum. Once my craft had gained sufficient speed to escape the pull of gravity and enter the vacuum of space, it would continue to travel at the speed that the rocket had propelled it to. To save weight my rocket engine would bring only enough fuel to escape earth’s gravity. Hereafter the ion engine would take over and continue to accelerate the craft for as long as it had fuel or until it reached the maximum VELOCITY at which the ion engine could accelerate the heavy ions. Never had my craft traveled at such speed! Yet, the goal of light speed was elusive.

Eighth Engine.

This time I replaced the ion engine with a mini particle accelerator. This was a miniaturized version of the type used at the LHC at Cerne. It was fully capable of accelerating particles to nearly the speed of light. This meant that, in time, by throwing particles out the back of the engine at nearly light speed, it would eventually accelerate my craft to that speed also. The thrust from this new engine stage was the lowest so far and it would take years to accelerate, but it was capable of eventually reaching 90% or more of the speed of light.

Conclusion.

At this point you might say: “well done”. The objective was more or less reached and a Nobel prize virtually assured! This story does not have a happy ending however, once I realized how little I had in fact achieved. My little “engine-that-could” would be of very little practical use. Why do I say this? Well, the problem with my multi stage engine was that it needed to be launched in an atmosphere-rich environment initially. The initial stages produced massive amounts of thrust as it explosively compressed air molecules behind it. The final stages however produced very little thrust in the vacuum of space and would not be able to slow the vehicle quickly enough once my destination was reached. I might well be able to use the gravity of a massive heavenly body to help slow it, but this would take years, not hours or even days. Secondly it would not be able to be launched again if it were ever to be successfully landed anywhere with appreciable gravity, but lacking a dense atmosphere. In other words, it would be somewhat useful for sending craft out into the void (perhaps a probe of some description) at mind bending speeds. However it could never be landed anywhere, much less returned home.
With sadness I had to realize that my engine had this in common with NASA’s rockets!

[simonshack]

Hi MagicFlame007 and welcome. That was an interesting thought experiment. I take it that your conclusion is similar to mine, i.e. that NASA has been taking us for a ride all along - and that none of their rockets have escaped our atmosphere let alone re-entered and landed / returned back on Earth?

ps: Kindly introduce yourself to our readers as required - in our dedicated "welcome thread" for new members:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838

[MagicFlame007]

Hi Simon,

I thought I had posted my intro, but saw that I did not submit or whatever. My introduction is there now however.

My position is that it is impossible to send anything into outer space, slow it down enough to land anywhere using existing rocket technology and even more impossible to take off if you miraculously managed to slow the craft enough to land it. If you had a dense atmosphere at your destination, you might well be able to take off again, but keep in mind that you would have to fight gravity again and hence need copious amounts of fuel to do so. The catch 22 here is that the more fuel you have, the more you need to fight gravity.

Sending a craft to the moon would require you to turn your craft "ass end" to the moon as soon as you escape the earth's gravity and braking for all your worth! Remember, that craft is not going to coast to standstill, it will continue forever at the speed you escaped at.

I believe in fact that it might well be possible to "shoot stuff" out into the void of space, but anything more than a flyby of your destination is wishful thinking. In outer space, your rockets would produce very little "thrust" and really only be good for minor course corrections (slowly).

My opinion further is that the way NASA and most other space exploration companies launch space vehicles is ridiculous as mentioned in my wistful story. I think they do it that way because showing the brute force of a "millions of horsepower" Saturn V launching vertically, is just another form of "shock and awe" technique, calculated to impress.

[Flabbergasted]

My opinion further is that the way NASA and most other space exploration companies launch space vehicles is ridiculous as mentioned in my wistful story. I think they do it that way because showing the brute force of a "millions of horsepower" Saturn V launching vertically, is just another form of "shock and awe" technique, calculated to impress.

Welcome aboard, MagicFlame007.

Are you saying that launching rockets vertically is a bad idea? Why is the launch mode shown in NASA videos ridiculous? Could you elaborate on that?

[MagicFlame007]

Hi Flabbergasted,

Thank you for the welcome.

My contention is that it takes a fraction of the energy to push (horizontally) a vehicle than to lift (vertically) it. Would it not make a lot more sense to push your vehicle and use wings (with it's known aerodynamic properties) to do the "heavy vertical lifting" way up into the stratosphere? That way you can dispense with at least the first stage rockets altogether.

Imagine a huge air frame type vehicle (not unlike the green machine in the Thunderbirds of old) with powerful jet engines and big wings. This monstrosity might cost as much or more than a Saturn V to develop and build, but it would be re-usable, since only the payload and final stage engine needs to be launched into outer space. This final stage would then already be traveling at perhaps one quarter of the velocity needed to escape earth's gravity and will have traversed much of the distance (height actually) by the time it separates from the air frame.

Have you noticed how a space rocket is not simply launched straight up into the air? Soon after launch they are gradually oriented to an attitude that is more perpendicular to the surface of earth (or so it would seem from watching footage). Surely the purpose of this would be to firstly "give you enough room" to reach escape velocity and secondly to not have to fight gravity every step of the way up.

[SacredCowSlayer]

Hi Flabbergasted,

Thank you for the welcome.

My contention is that it takes a fraction of the energy to push (horizontally) a vehicle than to lift (vertically) it. Would it not make a lot more sense to push your vehicle and use wings (with it's known aerodynamic properties) to do the "heavy vertical lifting" way up into the stratosphere? That way you can dispense with at least the first stage rockets altogether.

Imagine a huge air frame type vehicle (not unlike the green machine in the Thunderbirds of old) with powerful jet engines and big wings. This monstrosity might cost as much or more than a Saturn V to develop and build, but it would be re-usable, since only the payload and final stage engine needs to be launched into outer space. This final stage would then already be traveling at perhaps one quarter of the velocity needed to escape earth's gravity and will have traversed much of the distance (height actually) by the time it separates from the air frame.

Have you noticed how a space rocket is not simply launched straight up into the air? Soon after launch they are gradually oriented to an attitude that is more perpendicular to the surface of earth (or so it would seem from watching footage). Surely the purpose of this would be to firstly "give you enough room" to reach escape velocity and secondly to not have to fight gravity every step of the way up.

Welcome to the forum! I found your thought exercise to be very enjoyable and logical reading. Of course the launch straight up from a pad is just silly (and highly inefficient), but it looks good on TV, so what else matters. . . right? Plus, why not create maximum G forces and danger (i.e. drama) if you can afford to?

Of course this very idea is being made fun of in this short clip I took from the stupid movie Deep Impact from 1998.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBPguDSKer0

And since we are talking about vertical launches I will quote myself from the Elon Musk, SpaceX, and PayPal thread:

Here is the laughable and oddly named Mercury blastoff that has been posted above. But I have to wonder, which one of the released "videos" is the real one?

I count at least three different versions so far, all collected from a variety of NASA documentaries depicting this glorious moment in history.

Moreover, I'd like to add that the first living thing put in space by the U.S. was a chimp named Ham. You really can't spell sham without "ham".

The following clip can be seen in the NASA documentary at https://youtu.be/v5ZFT7TpYqM at the 23:33 mark.


And this one with the wooden shack (prop) flipping backwards (unlike the previous one above) can be seen here https://youtu.be/KkG1WMzoikY at roughly the 8:14 mark.


Then of course there is this little bit of magic. Just one minor problem that should be readily observed. Yes, the entire scene is mirrored.