Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Post Reply
Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Selene » Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:54 am

It's all plain and simple.

A device [in this case a rocket] can never ever function using the exact same mechanism and composed of the same materials in both atmospheric (T~-80-25 C, P~0.1-1 bar, g~9.8 m/s2) and 'space' (T~0, P~0, g~?) conditions.

Any physicist, chemist or engineer who claims it can, can only lie and I'd be thrilled to see their physio-chemical 'explanations' for it...

Selene

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Nink » Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:30 am

Intesresting topic. Here is my theory but please poke holes in it. If you take 2 Magnets and place them north to north. Put the magnets in a vacuum and let go. Despite being in a vacuum the magnets will repel each other and both magnets will move in opposite directions. Perhaps this is the real reason rockets have multiple stages. The common theory is rockets use stages so when you run out of propellant you jettison excess weight. This always struck me as strange. You carry the additional weight of multiple rockets because ?

What I believe is actually occurring is when a stage is released the rocket is now pushing against the stage as there is no atmosphere to push against. Notice the rockets fire before the stage is released with a small explosion. The rocket and the stage head in opposite directions. The jetisonned stage is sized to match the weight of the rocket and the remaining stages. After separation addition thrust can also push against the jettisoned stage but it quickly moves out of range so the effect is minimal. Once the momentum of the stage and rockets separation has reduced the second stage and or subsequent stages are then jettisoned against each other with an additional explosion pushing the rocket and stage in opposite directions. I haven't done the math or tried to calculate size and number of stages but theoretically I guess, given enough stages you could travel the first 90 to 100 KLM approaching the Karman line using traditional thrust propulsion and then continue without atmosphere using a stage separation propulsion method until you either achieve orbit another 60 to 70 KLM later or fall back to earth.

If you managed to solve that problem you are now 160+KLM above the earth and in orbit but you will no longer have a method of propulsion irrespective of the amount of fuel you have in order to return to earth. What I believe you could do at that point is fire a final stage that is on the nose at the top of the rocket with the astronoughts or payload you wish to return to earth positioned below the final nose cone stage. The resulting explosion would push the two sections of the rocket apart causing the payload to re enter the gravitational force of the earth.
Last edited by Nink on Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Xious
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Xious » Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:39 am

Nink wrote: I haven't done the math or tried to calculate size and number of stages but theoretically I guess, given enough stages you could travel the first 90+ KLM approaching the Karman line using traditional thrust propulsion and then continue without atmosphere using a stage separation propulsion method until you either achieve orbit another 70+ KLM later or fall back to earth.

If you managed to solve that problem you are now 160+KLM above the earth and in orbit but you will no longer have a method of propulsion irrespective of the amount of fuel you have in order to return to earth. What I believe you could do at that point is fire a final stage that is on the nose at the top of the rocket with the astronoughts or payload you wish to return to earth positioned below the final nose cone stage. The resulting explosion would push the two sections of the rocket causing the payload to re enter the gravitational force of the earth.
You might try actually reading the rest of this thread before posting. The thread isn't about wild theories on how to get a rocket to work in a vacuum.

What does anything in your post have to do with "Joule Expansion"? Do you have any idea what that even is?

Your theory is not much different than replacing the rocket engine with a machine gun which has already been covered.

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Nink » Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:16 am

Xious wrote:
You might try actually reading the rest of this thread before posting. The thread isn't about wild theories on how to get a rocket to work in a vacuum.

What does anything in your post have to do with "Joule Expansion"? Do you have any idea what that even is?

Your theory is not much different than replacing the rocket engine with a machine gun which has already been covered.
Hi Xious,
Thank you for your reply. I am well aware of the free expansion theory and I saw little point in debating the argument that a rocket will not work in a vacuum as 38 pages later I believe this has been fairly well proven. Since this is the case I was trying to understand what the purpose of the stages of rockets are given that we know rockets do not work in a vacuum. I have read the thread and the various theories being discussed including the machine gun theory. If a gun contained 1 bullet and the mass of this single bullet in the gun matched the mass of the gun this would in fact propel the gun in the opposite direction at the same velocity of the bullet. Remember newtons balls, take 5 balls drop 2 and only 2 will be repelled. Unfortunately in the machine gun theory this is hardly the case. The stage theory is the mass of the jetisonned stage equals the combined mass of the rocket and remaining stages creating equal and opposite force in both directions.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:14 am

I don't think a rocket built to fall apart is a good design, from the perspective of the stories about rockets shaking apart before they even get into the air. It's also highly questionable, to me, that a magnetic repulsion would have time and force enough to do anything before catching and tumbling away. Perhaps another physical launch, like — as you suggest — an explosion. It would also be an extreme engineering concern, I imagine, to make the devices work after being exposed to the heat supposedly coming out and doing anything but channeling the actual propulsion which would be several magnitudes more significant. Those stages are also hollow and not designed to be very massive. The fuel would be the most massive in a rocket design, and so the stages would provide a tiny almost insignificant push. All in all, it sounds like a way to get morale for the rocket, but not more thrust.

It also sounds like we are just making excuses for the imagery we see, and that's a very sad way to approach images that are fantasy animations. More appropriate for fans of a TV show.

It also doesn't make much sense from the perspective of defending the official story, since anything coming off of that rocket attempting "orbit" ought to fall without similar corrective measures — and there aren't even official stories about satellites and probes ejecting mass like miniature versions of the big rocket lie.

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Nink » Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:39 pm

Hi Hoi,
I am pretty sure we could come up with an array of magnets that will repel in vacuum / zero G without one of them rotating 180 degrees (maybe 2 apposing rail guns) but that could be tested in a zero g plane and a vacuum chamber. I just used magnets as an example of repulsion between two objects of equal mass.

Back on topic. I hear you on the TV Rockets, I assume there were initially some smart engineers at GE, Douglas Aircraft etc in the 1940s developing early multi-stage rockets like the RTV-G-4 Bumper rockets and they had their sites actually set on traveling beyond the Karman line (although JPL report they did). I don't believe the early engineers set out to deceive anyone it's just governments needing to demonstrate they have ICBM tech that probably made the first unrealistic claims in hopes the engineers would solve the problems necessary to acheive them.

That's my challenge, we don't really have a technology baseline. We don't know what is really possible and what is not and what the engineers and scientist were thinking as part of their original designs. I think the only thing we know for sure is the deception started back in the 40's after Germany first started the space propaganda war saying their long range missiles could hit any location on earth because their V2 rocket could reach space at 118 miles. Then came Sputnik the moon and we continue the hoax to Mars.

Gopi
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:00 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Gopi » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:34 am

I think most of rocketry can be summarized by one simple image:

Image

A force of push is insufficient to move upwards, a pull is also necessary, which physics has not even considered so far, as nothing is pulling the rocket upward. Most of the discussion on momentum conservation is totally irrelevant, as the rocket has to pass through several hurdles before getting to a pure vacuum. As most of the folks on the forum have suggested, it is a real obstacle course:

1. Bypass atmosphere, the only thing that can generate push

2. Bypass the high temperature thermosphere, which would pretty much melt or vaporize all known materials

3. Bypass the extremely high electric and magnetic fields, which can rip through and fry all the electronics

4. Bypass the high uV, X-Ray and Gamma rays, which would actually cause radioactivity to spike

5. Retain a mass that is dropping exponentially... according to the equations

6. AND, to top it all off, navigate numerous meteors, debris, and whatever else is floating about

Putting it all together, the conclusion is that there is a physical screen. It is easier to lift oneself by the bootstraps than to get an object off the earth.

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Nink » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:52 pm

Great post and good summary of problems that are needed to be solved. If only there was an organization with a massive budget that was given the mission to solve them /sarc
I don't think they are all unsolvable and the initial challenge would be to get something into space and not necesarilay a life form.
Gopi wrote: 1. Bypass atmosphere, the only thing that can generate push
thrust to 90-100klm => momentum => recoil
Gopi wrote: 2. Bypass the high temperature thermosphere, which would pretty much melt or vaporize all known materials
Meteors make it in so some type of multi layered heat disapation system that burns off layers
Gopi wrote: 3. Bypass the extremely high electric and magnetic fields, which can rip through and fry all the electronics
Faraday type shielding
Gopi wrote: 4. Bypass the high uV, X-Ray and Gamma rays, which would actually cause radioactivity to spike
Do we care if no life forms but lead shielded space suits would work (going to need a lot more thrust and momentum)
Gopi wrote: 5. Retain a mass that is dropping exponentially... according to the equations
Isn't losing mass the further we are from centre of earth a plus for us?
Gopi wrote: 6. AND, to top it all off, navigate numerous meteors, debris, and whatever else is floating about
I am pretty sure we can solve that one with appropriate sensors, analytics and actuators.
Gopi wrote: Putting it all together, the conclusion is that there is a physical screen. It is easier to lift oneself by the bootstraps than to get an object off the earth.
[/quote]
I don't agree, I think the first step is to come clean and admit we were lied to and then go back to the drawing board and start at problem number 1

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:54 pm

Nink wrote:I don't agree, I think the first step is to come clean and admit we were lied to and then go back to the drawing board and start at problem number 1
And we is who, that would start at problem number 1?

Who else is pushing a space agenda besides those who want to steal money from 'taxpayers' to support their shenanigans, using Media Fakery to achieve their means. If a private individual wants to build rockets that go into space, they're "free" to spend their time and money doing so (philosophically speaking, of course). Our questions here about rockets working in space is directly related to the Media Fakery aspect of fooling the public out of their monies, and deeper than that, their sanities.

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by Nink » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:37 pm

HonestlyNow wrote:
HonestlyNow wrote:
Nink wrote:I don't agree, I think the first step is to come clean and admit we were lied to and then go back to the drawing board and start at problem number 1
And we is who, that would start at problem number 1?

Who else is pushing a space agenda besides those who want to steal money from 'taxpayers' to support their shenanigans, using Media Fakery to achieve their means. If a private individual wants to build rockets that go into space, they're "free" to spend their time and money doing so (philosophically speaking, of course).
Very good point. Perhaps it's the inner geek in me that would actually like to see us accomplish this. The private money idea doesn't work that well either. I am sure if SPACE X / Musk enterprises goes bust, the tax payers will need to bail him out just like we did the banks.

One way if anyone has some time / money to prove that rockets don't work in vacuum would be an experiment but not the mythbusters version. I propose two small solid fuel rockets say 1" long. one in a large vacuum chamber hung from the top perhaps 10 meters above the ground. The other 10 meters above the ground but not in a vacuum. Both suspended by a string with remote control electric detonators.

Detonate both rockets and cut the string. My logic is the one in the vacuum chamber will fall down until the thrust is close enough to the bottom of the vacuum chamber to provide a surface to push against. The other rocket will do what rockets do. I am sure NASA would say something like we were not using their special combustion chamber with unicorn horns and fairy dust but would be interesting none the less.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:43 pm

And I would propose, just as it's already been said for the bajillionth time, that the moment you are releasing gases into the vacuum chamber, you no longer have an empty vacuum and the experiment fails because of not being designed properly. Furthermore, tiny rockets do not compare to the physics of the behemoths we are told soar beyond the mesosphere. And the clincher is that even NASA hasn't claimed to have built a physical simulation of infinite vacuum on Earth, so no fairy tales of accomplishing such are necessary to mock.

ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread post by ProperGander » Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:09 am

Funny how science fiction becomes fact.

How Jules Verne Invented Astronautics

"Verne also correctly understood the operation of rockets in the vacuum of space and was the first to seriously suggest their use there (although Elbert Perce in his Gulliver Joi of 1851 has precedence). Verne was aware of many of the special needs of space travelers and allowed for them; and he described the effects of weightlessness (though he was wrong in explaining its cause)."

http://io9.com/how-jules-verne-invented ... 1493029901

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Unread post by Larkness » Thu May 26, 2016 4:24 pm

simonshack wrote: I have personally come to the conclusion that space travel is impossible (no rockets can be propelled in the absence of air, let alone switch off their engines and keep orbiting indefinitely and "for free" around our planet at hypersonic speeds!)
How did you come to the conclusion that rocket propulsion doesn't work in a vacuum? You perform any experiments? Have any mathematical calculations to back up your beliefs?

What is wrong with Newton's 3rd law describing a reaction to thrust? This can happen in a vacuum as the propellant gases are acting upon the nozzle. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/n ... -Third-Law

I've yet to see anyone who knows about space flight claim that orbiting is "free". If you want to just hurl a chunk of debris into orbit then ignore it, then I guess you can call the coasting it does while in orbit free. But if you want anything useful from the object placed in orbit then it needs to have some sort of station keeping or attitude control unless it is a passive reflector like Echo 1. But even that one only lasted 8 years before the orbit decayed and it burned up in the atmosphere; it was then no longer useful or "free".
- and that once this insurmountable threshold of mankind's technology was discovered back in the days, the Nutwork (aka "the powers that be") decided to fool this entire world's population with their spaced-out fairy tales.
How was this discovered and who did so?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Unread post by simonshack » Thu May 26, 2016 6:04 pm

Larkness wrote: How did you come to the conclusion that rocket propulsion doesn't work in a vacuum? You perform any experiments? Have any mathematical calculations to back up your beliefs?
Larkness, I have moved your above question to the most appropriate discussion thread.

You may find some answers to your question among the 38 pages of this thread - if you just set aside some time reading them.

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re:

Unread post by Larkness » Thu May 26, 2016 6:11 pm

I asked why YOU were making the claims. So far I'm not impressed with the "facts" you are bring to the forum.
simonshack wrote:Thanks for bringing some well-documented common sense to debunk NASA's outlandish claims of having rockets moving in a vacuum.

Also, anyone with a modicum of aeronautical knowledge will know what a 'stall' means, that is when an airplane loses lift and, one could say, 'encounters vacuum'. The plane will plunge catastrophically to the ground - if aerodynamic support isn't quickly re-established.
Actually a stall happens when flow separation occurs at angles great than the critical angle of attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(fluid_mechanics) It appears that you don't understand the material in the link supplied previously. I suggest you study Newton's third law, this will help you.
simonshack wrote:Neither has NASA, dear Lux... for almost half a century now! ^_^
NASA explains it here; https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov ... ktth1.html
simonshack wrote:* Well, the claim that "air density has NO influence on rocket propulsion" has to be the silliest of all NASA lies.
Can you show me where any NASA scientist made this claim? People who understand rocketry know that rocket nozzles are shaped according to the density of the atmosphere (or lack thereof) they operate in.
simonshack wrote:
lux wrote: As I've said, I agree that NASA probably can't use rockets in space in any real practical way but I don't think this thread covers the reason for that. ....
Thoughts and comments most welcome.
In this post you go on and on about how rockets are impractical due to changes in atmosphere density. You seem to forget that larger rockets use staging. In part to rid themselves of excess weight but also to take advantage of the upper stage's engine which has a nozzle better suited for operation in the thinner air.
Last edited by Larkness on Thu May 26, 2016 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply