Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[Selene]

What about the idea that a chemical reaction can cause the gas to ignite without fire? (To avoid the complex description of what exactly fire is, I preempt your answer and hasten to add I recognize that it is a chemical reaction as well.)

To play devil's advocate, and because the official story now sounds so incredibly weak — laughable — wouldn't a pure chemical reaction, that isn't fire, still cause the requisite ignition and therefore expansion against the body of the ship? The gas wouldn't escape instantaneously, as you have sometimes left open as a possibility in your descriptions. Therefore, a nozzle is still useful in space, regardless of whether the gas is ejected or not. You can turn it on higher or lower. Ergo, although it may not be useful for pushing on a vehicle, it could still be used to combine chemicals in outer space, "under" the rocket, creating ignition and therefore enough blasts to move the rocket through space. Yes?



Wow, it's sounding pretty ridiculous to have space travel by any conventional means they claim to use.

Dear devil's advocate (great movie by the way),

First we must get clear what is the root driving mechanism for rockets? Propulsion, thrust, etc., right? I am not an engineer, but the concept is so well explained by simons funicular that does not move with the water thruster as the pressure/density difference between water and air is simply too big to power this heavy vehicle.

Then change the pressures of this experiment to the near vacuum of space. There simply is nothing to work against, to propel, to advance. Even if the thrust of the engine (in terms of the velocity of outflow) would be very high, still the pressure and temperature "conditions" (there's hardly neither of them) in space are so extreme that time and velocity is not enough to break basic physical and chemical laws.

If the propulsion hypothesis of movement is incorrect, then which mechanism is proposed that drives space rockets?

• all physical laws get 'crazy' when near zero pressure and temperature are approached
• how can anyone claim that "it works, because we see it happening in Earth's atmosphere so it must work in space the same way as well"?
• it should be different. The propulsion of rockets in atmosphere conditions must be entirely different than anything in non-atmospheric (space, (near) vacuum, > -200 deg Celsius Temperatures, radiation, etc.) conditions, in order to work

I would say the only remarkable force out there is gravity. All other physical forces are approaching zero in such empty conditions. All material properties heavily depend on temperature. At near zero temperature, "materials" start to behave very crazily. Gases don't exist, everything should be solid in space.

Consider:

• Mass = m - kg - presumed constant
• (Specific) weight = rho * g = N/m3 - depends on gravity & density
• Volume = V - m3 - relates to Pressure & Temperature; at (near) zero of both V gets enormous
• Temperature = result of Heat Flow and chemical state
• Pressure = F/A - N/m2 - near zero in Space
• Density (rho) = m/V - kg/m3 - depends on volume so on T & P
• Specific (tensile) strength = strength / rho - depends on density thus V thus T & P
• Heat capacity = E/T - J/K - highly depends on Temperature
• Coefficient of thermal expansion = 1/V * (dV/dT) - depends on Volume and Temperature
• Thermal conductivity = Power/Volume and Temperature - W/m*K - depends on mass, length, energy state, time and temperature - Watt = J/s

In the end everything boils down to (inverse pun intended) the basic physical and chemical laws:

P*V = n*R*T

Here on Earth, all physical material testing laws have either gravity (~9.81 m/s2) or density (depending on PVT conditions) in them.

What about publishing enormously advanced tests of all those rockets "up there"? A unique P, T, V, gravity, density and radiation testing environment. Wouldn't we expect thousands and thousands of publications about (material) behaviour under such bizarre conditions?

Don't they come with the nice yet starless photo collection as presented to us by NASA?

[idea for other topic]How comets produce their alleged tail, is another topic to dive into. Without explaining that my thesis here I am not considering valid (enough).[/idea]

Interesting video:


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

Do not imagine that mathematics is hard and crabbed, and repulsive to common sense. It is merely the etherealization of common sense
Lord Kelvin (1910)

[Boethius]

What about the idea that a chemical reaction can cause the gas to ignite without fire? (To avoid the complex description of what exactly fire is, I preempt your answer and hasten to add I recognize that it is a chemical reaction as well.)

To play devil's advocate, and because the official story now sounds so incredibly weak — laughable — wouldn't a pure chemical reaction, that isn't fire, still cause the requisite ignition and therefore expansion against the body of the ship? The gas wouldn't escape instantaneously, as you have sometimes left open as a possibility in your descriptions. Therefore, a nozzle is still useful in space, regardless of whether the gas is ejected or not. You can turn it on higher or lower. Ergo, although it may not be useful for pushing on a vehicle, it could still be used to combine chemicals in outer space, "under" the rocket, creating ignition and therefore enough blasts to move the rocket through space. Yes?



Wow, it's sounding pretty ridiculous to have space travel by any conventional means they claim to use.

Well, Hoi, you really only need oxygen to burn something flammable so I can imagine them combusting fuel in a vacuum using an alternative oxygen source although this doesn't change my view on the ability of the ship to produce thrust in a vacuum.

A nozzle won't work in a vacuum because as soon as you expose the high pressure gas to the vacuum of space free expansion takes over and the gas is sucked out of the rocket. A nozzle works by pushing gas or liquid into a medium such as air. Joules already proved you can't push gas into a vacuum.

Also, anytime a force is present some object is doing work. Because gas does no work when it enters the vacuum it generates no force.

There is no under in space for gases. There is no way to stop a molecule of gas released into the vacuum from disappearing into the distance. It doesn't matter if you have 1,000,000,000,000 molecules, they will all fly away without bumping into each other because they all travel at the same speed without slowing down so no matter how much gas you have you will never have pressure until you fill up every square meter of the universe with some non-zero pressure.

The use of gas in a vacuum is a non-starter. Goddard had some decent results with liquid fuel in the 20's, Fritz Lang made a movie, Verner Von Braun shot some rockets that went up very high before coming down and out of all that Walt Disney, Kubrick and the plants in the media have brought dragons, mermaids and wizards to life...in our minds. Nobody has ever been to space much less traveled through it.

[simonshack]

Nobody has ever been to space much less traveled through it.

Well said, Boethius. I think that this fact is becoming more and more evident to any rational mind.

But then again, we have "RATIONAL WIKI" telling us otherwise.. > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Space_travel_hoax

SpaceTravelHoax_01.PNG (84.03 KiB) Viewed 15889 times

Funny, innit? You've gotta love their accusations of "denialism" ! Hey Joe, are YOU a "denialist"?

[Boethius]

The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space.

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc... If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc... all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton's 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space and is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that's OK because most people don't usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won't touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like the do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn't exist?

[simonshack]

*

NASA DENIES EXISTENCE OF AIR


NASA tells us that their rockets "do not push against air", i.e. that the exhaust plumes thrusting out from below their rockets (and against the surrounding atmospheric pressure) are in no way responsible for propelling them upwards and away from the pull of gravity. They claim that the action>reaction providing their rockets' upward motion occurs 'inside' the rocket itself, as the quickly-expelled fuel pushes against the top of its fuel tank - much like the gunpowder explosion of a bullet fired out of a gun pushes back on the gun barrel (recoil effect).

In other words, one might justly say that NASA denies the existence of air.

That's right, NASA is basically telling us that air (aerodynamic) drag is NOT a force. Yet, as we all know, air drag increases exponentially with speed. Air drag is undeniably the primary opposing force encountered by an accelerating vehicle. To propel a Porsche at 200km/h, its engine will need to use 4X as much horsepower as it needs to travel at 100km/h. As expounded in this earlier post of mine, in our earthly atmosphere a Porsche would need 40 million horsepower to attain a speed of 16.000km/h. This, of course (as of Newton's laws) means that the reaction force of the stationary air molecules being displaced by the Porsche's motion is equal to a force of 40 million horsepower. Now, please picture / imagine a stationary Porsche. All of a sudden, an extraordinarily strong, 40 million-horsepower wind gust (think "rocket plume") hits it from behind. The Porsche will, of course, 'rocket' forward at tremendous speed. Yet, according to "NASA physics" - this will not happen.

The stationary air molecules underneath an ascending rocket (at sea-level and up to a certain altitude of our atmosphere) obviously provide a formidable 'wall / springboard' against which the hot, powerful jet of rocket exhausts thrusts against. At ever higher altitudes (as the atmospheric pressure dwindles) this 'springboard' of air molecules will get increasingly thinner / weaker. Ultimately (at around 100km of altitude or so) an ascending rocket will encounter too few air molecules to support its own weight. Gravity will reclaim the rocket back to earth.

Well, at least Theodore von Kármán did not deny the existence of AERODYNAMIC LIFT !...

"When studying aeronautics and astronautics in the 1950s, Kármán calculated that above an altitude of roughly 100 km (62 mi), a vehicle would have to fly faster than orbital velocity in order to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself."
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/386608

And consider this: "Above 100 kilometers the air density is about 1/2200000 the density on the surface." https://alchetron.com/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n-line

[Boethius]

Simon,

for an object to be pushed by another object they must be touching.

For the exhaust from a rocket to push the rocket it must touch the rocket but the vacuum of space insulates the molecules of gas shot out of a rocket preventing them from interacting with the ship or each other so their force would never be propagated back to the ship.

F=MA e.g. Newton's Second Law i.e. the Massflow equation fails in space.

NASA would have you believe a particle flying off into space via free expansion can somehow reach back and push the ship.

The NASA equations look good on paper but fail at the molecular level.They are used for psy-ops and not for true science.

[Pilgrim]

It seems some still cling to Newton's third law as a Universal principle that applies under all conditions to excuse NASA rather than something that only works under certain conditions where a mass reacts against another mass which it can "push" against. We have shown that the person on ice skates or a skateboard throwing a mass away from themselves does not equate to Rocket propulsion as the thing been thrown is the medium that one pushes against and the push comes from the persons muscles against the resistance of the mass being thrown and not the simple fact of throwing away the mass in itself. There can be no opposite push in the Rocket engine itself as Lux claims if the propelled gases meet no resistance and in a vacuum and are free to carry on there velocity without a resistance.
It's like letting of a balloon into the end of household vacuum cleaner, there will be no thrust and the balloon will not depart from the nozzle of the vacuum cleaner.
Again i must ask the doubters to come up with any proof or example of Newton's third law which does not involve an ejected mass not pushing against another mass. Rockets push against air pressure, please prove this false if you disagree by example.

[Boethius]

Pilgrim,

NASA confuses people by leaving out significant facts such as for an object to impart it's momentum to another object there must be a physical touching of the two objects

For example: gravity accelerates a falling object giving it a force downwards due to momentum (F=MA) but the equal and opposite force upwards is not produced until the falling object lands on something. It's the something it lands on that provides the equal, upwards force e.g. bounce.

Gas molecules in an infinite vacuum (space) cease to collide and thus never impart their force. Newton's 3rd Law cannot be applied to gas in space.

Rockets cannot function in space.

Q.E.D.

[hoi.polloi]

B-b-but Boethius, my good Sir, how does Bugs Bunny float back to Earth using a parasol if there weren't vast quantities of atmosphere in outer space itself?

I suppose you want to tell me that Mr. Bunny has not the authority to represent the subject because he does not work for ESA or NASA, but the fact is that Mr. Bunny has actually been to outer space and we have video proof of his adventures. There is no denying this irrefutable fact.

And if you are about to tell me Mr. Bunny is not a real person, and the whole video was "faked" in some way (ridiculous, of course, because that would involve far too many people to keep quiet about it) then obviously you belong in a loony tunes bin.

Q.E.D.

Animals and people have been to outer space. And landed on the Moon. And drove around in a moon buggy. And encountered "space issues" during the Apollo 13 near-disaster. And launched hundreds of satellites that never crash or fail at inopportune moments. And nukes are real. And 9/11 was terrorists. And JFK was alone on Dealey Plaza when Oswald got him. And war is peace. And you are a pudding head.

Sorry about all this. It's just baffling how people will argue against scientific theories with this kind of rhetoric and I wanted to mimic them. I know it's not a good argumentation style. Just having a laugh.

[simonshack]

B-b-but Boethius, my good Sir, how does Bugs Bunny float back to Earth using a parasol if there weren't vast quantities of atmosphere in outer space itself?

MIS-CON-CEPTIONS !

Aaaw, Hoi...

I think you are confused as to some fundamental laws of physics which - if you'd only bother asking any NASA scientist - you should be smart enough to wrap your head around. Let me explain - starting with some simple, down-to-earth examples:

You do not need vast quantities of water to propel yourself through water - only a small swimming pool will do. You only need to flap your arms and legs - and this will keep you afloat and propel your body forward quite nicely. NOTE: contrary to widespread myths / misconceptions, your motion has absolutely nothing / zilch / nada to do with your limbs "pushing on the water"! Nay nay nay, Siree: what makes you move is simply the recoil force produced by your bodily muscles (as you flap your arms and legs back and forth) !

Swimmer_01.jpg (190.08 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

Of course, this means that you can swim just as easily through air. The problem is, most people are simply not aware of this fact - due to sheer ignorance and disinformation (as well as our inborn fear of heights). For instance, look at this lady jumping off a cliff : she clearly doesn't make the slightest attempt to flap her arms and legs. She will therefore plummet down the precipice like a sandbag. Like most people, she just doesn't know that she could stay aloft by simply flapping her limbs - much like swimmers do to stay afloat and propel themselves through water:

CliffJumper_01.jpg (169.4 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

This distressing ignorance of basic physics has been allowed to spread among the masses - in spite of countless educational American cartoon movies. Ask yourself, for instance: how many times have we seen Wile E Coyote running over a cliff and, the moment he stops moving (i.e. flapping his limbs) - plunging to almost certain death? Yet, most people still believe that a swimmer "pushes against water" in order to stay afloat and move forward... The same folks believe that rockets push against air in order to escape from gravity. Nothing is further from the truth! NO matter WHERE you find yourself - in water, in the air or in the vacuum of space, all you need to do is to keep producing RECOIL ENERGY !

Wile_E_Coyote_01.jpg (83.12 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

But let me now get you up to speed with Academic, NASA-certified physics. See, as NASA patiently keeps trying to teach the ignorant populace, if you throw a medicine ball from a skateboard - you will be propelling yourself backwards. This is due to Newton's 3d law of motion : "For every ACTION (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite REACTION".

MedicineBallSkateboard_01.jpg (51.02 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

Of course, this will work just as well if you wish to propel yourself upwards.
All you need to do is throw the medicine ball FASTER, you see? :

MedicineBallSkateboard_02.jpg (51.53 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

In fact, this is exactly how NASA rockets work. Imagine the rocket fuel as many many medicine balls being flung out very very quickly from the rocket nozzle. As you can intuitively conceptualize, the force (ACTION) pushing out the balls (Daffy Duck, in this case) exerts an equal and opposite force (REACTION) on the top of the combustion chamber, thus propelling the rocket upwards. As you can see, the propulsion of NASA rockets has nothing to do with the surrounding atmosphere : as long as Daffy Duck keeps flapping his legs / kicking out the balls from WITHIN the rocket nozzle, the spacecraft will keep soaring up in the skies - and beyond - into the vacuum of space:

DaffyDuckPropulsion_01.jpg (126.76 KiB) Viewed 18623 times

Hope this helps!


*****
ps: In case anyone wonders, yes - this a satirical (and hopefully a bit humorous) post of mine.

[Selene]

Priceless, simon.

Why should we fear; and what? The laws?
They all are armed in virtue's cause;
And aiming at the self-same end,
Satire is always virtue's friend.
Charles Churchill (1763)

[Boethius]

A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience the force. Forces only exist as a result of an interaction.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/n ... g-of-Force

NASA and it's apologists stick to the mantra of F=MA while closing their eyes to the fact that the lack of interaction between ship and gas means there can be no force.

As I said when I first started this thread NASA's "massflow equation, F=MA" is like the old joke of which side of the house does the rooster's egg fall. The trick is to realize that roosters don't lay eggs. The trick of understanding the NASA psy-op is realizing that gas does not produce a force in a vacuum. Lucky for us James Prescott Joules found that out over 100 years ago.

[Pilgrim]

Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate
Could Daffy i wonder push against those medicine balls fast enough as they are being pulled out into the massive space vacuum by an infinitely greater force of a huge space vacuum which i speculate would be far greater than Daffy's muscles so no thrust can be produced. As in the case of letting a balloon of in the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner if the vacuum cleaner is powerful enough. It will stay on the end of the nozzle and not go buzzing around your room.

[simonshack]

Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate

Dear Pilgrim,

I should probably have used the Woody Woodpecker character...

Here's Woody explaining how rocketry works - ( starting at 1:20). Enjoy !


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osnqu6ijNXM

[Pilgrim]

Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate

Dear Pilgrim,

I should probably have used the Woody Woodpecker character...

Here's Woody explaining how rocketry works - ( starting at 1:20). Enjoy !

I did enjoy. You are right Simon, who can deny Warner Bros and all the rest are not into this space scam up to their eyeballs too.?