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 Intothevoid on July 5th, 2017, 2:16 am

patrix » July 4th, 2017, 9:38 am wrote:Request: Experiments/demonstrations that refute the hypothesis that rockets work in vacuum

If you been following this thread or the satellite thread, you know I’ve had a hard time even considering that rockets would not work in vacuum. But thanks to all of you and me working with my cognitive dissonance I’ve finally managed to think rationally about this, and I now instead find it absurd to think that rockets would work in vacuum. I am not that fluent with physics formulas but I have a pretty good understanding about how gas and pressure works. I am also a person that likes to talk about what’s on my mind so I’ve had a lot of discussions with friends and colleagues on this. I would like to know if anyone have links to experiments or demonstrations that show how unlikely it is that rockets could work in vacuum? I have some ideas of my own (see below), but I’ve not found anything similar on Youtube or elsewhere and would rather not go through the hassle of doing them myself in the garage since it’s a lot of work to build a decent vacuum chamber.

Cracker in a bottle experiment: Suspend a bottle with wires in a camber with normal atmospheric pressure. Put a firecracker in the bottle an light it. The bottle should move slightly when the gas from the explosion rushes through the neck of the bottle and meets resistance. Now remove as much air as possible from the chamber, and do the experiment again. The bottle should move less or not at all, since the expanding gasses meet lesser resistance from the surrounding air when exiting the bottle.

I know about the deceptive experiments done by for example Mythbusters and the one I refereed to previously in this thread, where you have a small vacuum chamber and hence get the exhaust gasses of a rocket to work against the wall of the chamber, but I believe if you do the experiment I describe you would not get that problem since a cracker releases less gas. And most people I’ve talked to agrees that a rocket and bottle with a cracker is a similar concept.


Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.
Intothevoid
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: March 1st, 2016, 2:29 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby rusty on July 5th, 2017, 8:18 am

Kham wrote:
There is another video that demonstrates the idea of how thrust works also using a standard balloon car. Although this clip does not disprove that rockets can operate in a vacuum, it does demonstrate the pushing against air idea, in that air exiting the balloon must push on the atmosphere behind it in order for the balloon car to move forward. I included this link because it was a second demonstration of that same idea from the first video and it’s entertaining. The experiment at the link below will start at 9:20. The explanations are at the beginning of the video.

NERD ACCIDENTALLY PROVES ROCKETS DON'T WORK IN SPACE!


To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 120
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby patrix on July 5th, 2017, 10:26 am

rusty » July 5th, 2017, 8:18 am wrote:To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.

Hi rusty and thanks for the input

Yes, I agree and this clearly illustrates why rockets have no way to work in vacuum. But technical people I talk to cannot see this because we’ve been so indoctrinated. Most of the times when I talk about this Newton is brought up and this reasoning is claimed to violate his laws, but it doesn’t. A good analogy in my mind, is to talk about a gun or a cannon and different bullets. If you fire a bullet you will get a recoil. If you reduce the weight of the bullet and use the same charge the recoil will be less. If you remove the bullet entirely and shoot a blank, the recoil will be very small but measurable. And if you fire the blank charge at the top of Mount Everest it will be smaller than at sea level. So what would logically happen if you fire a blank in vacuum?
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby patrix on July 7th, 2017, 8:02 am

Intothevoid » July 5th, 2017, 2:16 am wrote:Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.

When I was a kid we fired mini rockets under the ice of lakes. You had to time it right, hold the rocket in your hand and release it just as it started to burn. But I don't know how well a regular rocket burns in a vacuum. Yes a balloon or bottle with just air would demonstrate the exact same thing, but I don't know if people will accept that. Rockets in vacuum clearly violates basic physics and that has already been proven. Yet we cannot see that (including me until just a couple of weeks ago) because of sattelites and all the rest of the space hoax. We are so caught in this lie.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby hoi.polloi on July 7th, 2017, 5:03 pm

Another funny thing about those rockets I used to play with as a teenager (I think they were called "Estes") is that they would accelerate instantly, like an explosion. I know this has already been covered in previous discussions, but I find this important to mention and/or "bump" it because I think it's a pretty critical discussion when we are watching these towering, slow-moving objects barely climb into the air on the launch videos.

What manner of rocket is this compared with the familiar kind we know about and can play with ourselves? The idea of some kind of balloon or buoyancy trick doesn't seem as impossible to me as I thought before. We must consider the real possibility that these objects are never manned. As per military guidance safety reasons.

The "dare" is that they tell the world they are putting up manned rockets as if it were as simple as flying an extremely fast and barely balancing aircraft (which itself, I am led to believe, is not easy either) but the truth is that there is simply nobody occupying these dummy crafts.

The logical fact that every kind of "landing" you can think of basically requires a "retrieval" crew lends itself to the idea that the "returning astronauts" are delivered to the "landing site" from a home base, which would be extremely militarily secure as well.

An obvious choice would be to simply place the "returned astronauts" there with a secretive crew. Then, for the "recovery" crew to retrieve in a kind of bizarre (Masonic? i.e.; dupers' delightful?) performance ritual. This would keep the secret in the hands of even fewer people, in case some NASA devotee civilian photographer or another kind of joyful zealot wanted to tag along and witness the retrieval first hand.

Depending on the security level of the whole operation you might leave the base with the astronauts already in tow, then "reveal" them in the ocean, or not even leave home at all and just have some short documentary footage.

I get the feeling that if they make footage they are happy with they show it. We get the false impression that some clip in the news means they have entire enormous documentary crews for every single take off and landing event. The truth might be that the only media that ever exists about a landing is the brief hour-long interactions or so shown on NASA channel.

And that's if you're "lucky" and you get that much footage at all.

Slap a "LIVE" sticker somewhere on there and — hey, presto! — you got yourself a real spectacle. Entire mission "filled in" the audience's very primed and hypnotized imaginations.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby simonshack on July 7th, 2017, 10:56 pm

*

Hey folks, dontcha know?

NO AIR IS REQUIRED!


https://www.livescience.com/34475-how-d ... t-air.html
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby patrix on August 5th, 2017, 4:38 pm

Topics Of the Times

I found this interesting piece and transcribed it below.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... l-full.pdf
It's an editorial from New York Times anno 1920. I found it through this article:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation ... work-space

And as the author (whom seems to sadly be unknown) points out - To claim that rockets can work in the vacuum of space would be "to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. EINSTEIN and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that." :)

TOPICS OF THE TIMES (New York Times, Jan 13, 1920)
A Severe Strain on Credulity
As a method of sending missile to the higher, and even to the highest, part of the earth's atmosphere envelope, Professor GODDARD'S multiple-charge rocket is a practicable, and therefore promising, device. Such a rocket, too, might carry self-recording instruments, to be released at the limit of its flight, and conceivably parachutes would bring them safely to the ground. It is not obvious, however, that the instruments would return to the point of departure; indeed, it is obvious that they would not, for parachutes drift exactly as balloons do. And the rocket, or what was left of it after the last explosion, would have to be aimed with amazing skill, and in a dead calm, to fall on the spot where it started.

But that is a slight inconvenience, at least from the scientific standpoint, though it might be serious enough from that of the always innocent bystander a few hundred or thousand yards away from the firing line. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt and looks again, to see if the dispatch announcing the professor's purposes and hopes says that he is working under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution. It does say so, and therefore the impulse to do more than doubt the practicability of such a device for such a purpose must be-well, controlled. Still, to be filled with uneasy wonder and to express it will be safe enough, for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. EINSTEIN and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that.
His plan is not original.

That Professor GODDARD, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react-to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

But there are such things as intentional mistakes or oversights, and, as it happens, JULES VERNE, who also knew a thing or two in assorted sciences-and had, besides, a surprising amount of prophetic power-deliberately seemed to make the same mistake that Professor GODDARD seems to make. For the Frenchman, having got his travelers to or toward the moon into the desperate fix of riding a tiny satellite of the satellite, saved them from circling it forever by means of an explosion would not have had in the slightest degree the effect of releasing them from their dreadful slavery. That was one of VERNE'S few scientific slips, or else it was a deliberate step aside from scientific accuracy, pardonable enough in him as a romancer, but its like is not so explained when made by a savant who isn't writing a novel of adventure.
All the same, if Professor GODDARD'S rocket attains sufficient speed before it passes out of our atmosphere-which is a thinkable possibility-and if its aiming takes into account all of the many deflective forces that will affect its flight, it may reach the moon. That the rocket could carry enough explosive to make on impact a flash large and bright enough to be seen from the earth by the biggest of our telescopes-that will be believed when it is done.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby molodyets on September 23rd, 2017, 7:02 pm

hoi.polloi » July 7th, 2017, 5:03 pm wrote:Another funny thing about those rockets I used to play with as a teenager (I think they were called "Estes") is that they would accelerate instantly, like an explosion. I know this has already been covered in previous discussions, but I find this important to mention and/or "bump" it because I think it's a pretty critical discussion when we are watching these towering, slow-moving objects barely climb into the air on the launch videos.


While reading the above, I imagined getting one of those toy rockets and making it heavy enough to slow it down like the real NASA rockets. Without even needing to try it, I am positive it would fall over, probably no matter how well I tried to balance it.

While writing the above, I started wondering if there are any rocket design contests for college engineering programs. The following one from MIT includes a video: http://rocketry.mit.edu/2015/05/launch/. The first thing I noticed about the video was how far away they filmed it. IDK, maybe it was for safety reasons, but seems a little fishy. I would want to see it close up. I also noticed how fast the rocket accelerated at first, but then it slowed down. Again, to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they had a multi-stage thruster and the first one was the strongest.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby hoi.polloi on September 23rd, 2017, 7:14 pm

These are important discussions to have!

Remember, next on "The Clues Chronicle" we will be discussing this very thread and the topics covered, so please let us know what you'd like K and I to tell people. What are the most critical points, for example? What are the weakest? How can we convey this over audio? Any and all suggestions welcome!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4829
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby molodyets on September 24th, 2017, 5:52 pm

hoi.polloi » September 23rd, 2017, 7:14 pm wrote:Remember, next on "The Clues Chronicle" we will be discussing this very thread and the topics covered, so please let us know what you'd like K and I to tell people. What are the most critical points, for example? What are the weakest? How can we convey this over audio? Any and all suggestions welcome!


To preface my comments, I'm convinced that rocketry theoretically works in a vacuum, but they haven't yet solved the tremendous technical challenges. That doesn't seem to matter because in order to keep the money flowing, they only need to fake it.

In the next episode, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about how the world would be different if all this stuff worked as claimed. Over the several decades of rocketry, it should be so advanced and cheaper that we'd have space ships up there already and tons of video showing it. There'd be video of student projects in space, or different companies competing with each other for the best rocket thruster design. The lack of all this activity is a giant clue that thrust doesn't work well enough yet.

I'm also interested in how the spent rocket thrusters always seem to fall back to Earth, even after delivering their satellite payloads. With all the kinetic energy used to put the rocket and satellites into space, the rockets would most likely end up in some kind of orbit that might last a long time before they happened to get caught by the atmosphere.

As some feedback, I really like the episodes and listen to them multiple times while traveling. I don't mind at all when you start discussing peripheral topics. Although I enjoy the philosophical side of things, you could spend a little more time discussing the technical issues, like all the theories of why rocketry should not work in a vacuum.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby simonshack on September 24th, 2017, 9:59 pm

molodyets » September 24th, 2017, 4:52 pm wrote:To preface my comments, I'm convinced that rocketry theoretically works in a vacuum, but they haven't yet solved the tremendous technical challenges.


You have me totally riveted to my seat, dear molodyets! Will you please explain to me (in graspable manner) just how rocketry would theoretically work in the airless void of space? I really wish to understand. Since you claim to be 'convinced' that it works, I'm sure you can share with us all this conviction of yours.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby patrix on September 25th, 2017, 8:32 am

hoi.polloi » September 23rd, 2017, 7:14 pm wrote:These are important discussions to have!

Remember, next on "The Clues Chronicle" we will be discussing this very thread and the topics covered, so please let us know what you'd like K and I to tell people. What are the most critical points, for example? What are the weakest? How can we convey this over audio? Any and all suggestions welcome!


Ah, my favorite subject coming up :-) The reason being that if you "get this", then it becomes clear that nothing can enter space since there are no known transportation systems to put things there.

But as Cluesforum readers may know, this was the hardest part for me to understand. I came to this forum with blazing cannons about how satellites and rockets could not be fake. It was with good intentions however since I was convinced about all your other research but believed this to be disinformation along the lines of Flat Earth.

So how does a mind like mine work and how can we "deprogram" it assuming that is a goal with the show? I came to the point where Anders Björkman and Paul Clark was pretty soon. Being that re-entry is not possible thus making satellites and space probes possible, but not manned space ships. But then my progression halted. I think one reason is that the satellite and rocket hoax is indirectly enforced through the many theories surrounding the Moon hoax. So when you "accept" the Moon hoax you are also accepting that they faked it by going to low earth orbit or by having a satellite that simulated the communication between the Moon rocket and earth. And then there are of course the GPS and Satellite TV stories.

As for evidence I would say the Joule-Thomson experiment performed in the late 19th century seals the fate for rockets in an unrestricted vacuum, and it is quite possible to perform a more visually appealing experiment. A small rocket or bottle with compressed gas in a sufficiently large vacuum chamber would not be able to react against the wall of the chamber or pressurize the chamber enough to react with the gas it itself produces. But it seems that Youtube is kept clean of videos that do not perform this experiment in a deceptive manner where the chamber is too small and/or the rocket can react against the wall of the chamber.

I would say that "Rockets in vacuum" is one of the Nutworks "finest" accomplishments. Their goal is to make us choose their fantasies and stories in favor of what we actually can observe and understand with our own senses and intellect. This is what gives these psychos a mental orgasm and makes them feel in control. And boy have they succeeded with the rocket hoax. The physical laws that makes rocketry in vacuum impossible is simple and verifiable by controlled experiments. But through their control of media and persistence they have made the entire world deny the objective reality in favor of their fantasy. And that included a grown up and reasonably intelligent man like me until recently.

So Thank You Simon, Hoi and all the other fine researchers here at Cluesforum for giving me back my reality. Let's keep it real together.

Have a great show Hoi and Kham! I'm looking forward to listen to it and I hope these rocket musings gave you some food for thought.
Last edited by patrix on September 25th, 2017, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby agraposo on September 25th, 2017, 11:00 am

molodyets » 24 Sep 2017, 18:52 wrote:With all the kinetic energy used to put the rocket and satellites into space, the rockets would most likely end up in some kind of orbit that might last a long time before they happened to get caught by the atmosphere.

Yes, that statement is elementary physics, but do you have any proof that this is actually happening in the real world, and not in the mathematical fantasy world of physicists, like black holes, apart from the silly images we see on tv? Otherwise, your sentence is one of the silliest sentences I have read in this forum!
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby molodyets on September 25th, 2017, 9:20 pm

agraposo » September 25th, 2017, 11:00 am wrote:
molodyets » 24 Sep 2017, 18:52 wrote:With all the kinetic energy used to put the rocket and satellites into space, the rockets would most likely end up in some kind of orbit that might last a long time before they happened to get caught by the atmosphere.

Yes, that statement is elementary physics, but do you have any proof that this is actually happening in the real world, and not in the mathematical fantasy world of physicists, like black holes, apart from the silly images we see on tv? Otherwise, your sentence is one of the silliest sentences I have read in this forum!


Maybe you forgot the context of my comment? I was giving my suggestion to Hoi, at his request, about what to include in his next podcast. I think that is a very good example of how NASA's claims are totally inconsistent.

Simon asked 'very sarcastically' about the reason why I think rocketry can work in a vacuum. I think maybe we have a different definition of terms. When I write rocketry, I mean the cause of thrust. At the present, I agree with the mainstream thought that for a closed system (rocket components + fuel), when the byproducts of combustion are ejected away from the rocket, that momentum is conserved and this is interpreted as thrust for the rocket. If momentum is not conserved in the vacuum, I would be very interested to learn that. This is why I asked Hoi to go into more detail about how rocketry cannot work in a vacuum. So let me return to the definition of terms. On this forum, rocketry probably means moving rockets into space. I am in total agreement that NASA and other agencies are obviously faking that because it cannot be done.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby antipodean on September 26th, 2017, 7:00 am

hoi.polloi » September 24th, 2017, 6:14 am wrote:These are important discussions to have!

Remember, next on "The Clues Chronicle" we will be discussing this very thread and the topics covered, so please let us know what you'd like K and I to tell people. What are the most critical points, for example? What are the weakest? How can we convey this over audio? Any and all suggestions welcome!


Looking forward to it. Correct me if I'm wrong but we can look forward to some of Newton's laws of gravity being questioned. As I once tried to in this post.
viewtopic.php?p=2364714#p2364714

One of the weapons used by the Moon Landing huggers is the interpretation of Newton's laws.
Space being a vacuum, objects entering space being continually powered by the effects of being in a vacuum. Until they reach the gravitational pull of another celestial body. (the moon)

How could someone in the 18th Century be an expert on the atmospheric conditions of space ?
Also what about the intermediate area between the Earth's atmosphere and Space itself. Or is that explained by being the Van Allen belt ?
Or maybe I'm thick and just can't grasp it. Looking forward to Kham explain why I was a dunce at Physics.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 578
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Previous

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests