Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[Boethius]

Despite its immensely important implications, this discussion has been extended beyond any usefulness. There is nothing left to say which hasn´t been explained, reiterated and reworded over and over. I would call it a day and put a period to it.

I blinded them with science!

EOT? (End of Thread?)

[Heiwa]

Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.

Actually the liquid fuel of the rocket engine is ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and becomes a hot gas that expands in the combustion chamber 1000+ times and has nowhere to go except through a nozzle connected to the combustion chamber leading to outside space/vacuum. So the hot gas - previously liquid fuel - escapes into space/vacuum and causes pollution there!
And by so doing - polluting space/vacuum - a force is applied to the rocket combustion chamber attached to the rocket, which thus distances itself from the polluted space. Newton cannot be wrong! Ever.
Thus Rocketry Works in the Vacuum.
The problem is to get the heavy liquid fuel up into space with the spaceship and ignite it there for whatever reasons. NASA never solved that problem - http://www.heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . US tax payers pls take note! NASA has fooled you since 1961!

[Boethius]

Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.

Actually the liquid fuel of the rocket engine is ignited in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and becomes a hot gas that expands in the combustion chamber 1000+ times and has nowhere to go except through a nozzle connected to the combustion chamber leading to outside space/vacuum. So the hot gas - previously liquid fuel - escapes into space/vacuum and causes pollution there!
And by so doing - polluting space/vacuum - a force is applied to the rocket combustion chamber attached to the rocket, which thus distances itself from the polluted space. Newton cannot be wrong! Ever.

It wasn't Newton who worked with gas in a vacuum. It was Joules and he said gas entering a vacuum does no work. Maxwell agreed in his laws of Thermodynamics.

Thus Rocketry Works in the Vacuum.

Thus you have not exhaustively investigated whether or not rockets work in a vacuum. You have not even addressed any of my concerns regarding gas existing as a physical state of matter in a vacuum much less it having the ability to impart a force.

Are there laws of gasses that proves gas produces a force in a vacuum? Or do gas laws become invalid when the pressure is 0?

Space flight is not a matter of "lighter rockets" or "more efficient fuel". There are more fundamental problems to be solved before it is possible.

[Flabbergasted]

Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.

The problem with accepting this simple and undisputable fact is that it renders a lot of other discussions pointless, such as whether the Curiosity Rover could have descended on Mars the way NASA says it did and with the amount of fuel allotted. It´s not easy to give up all those otherwise laudable efforts at physics and calculus.

[Heiwa]

It wasn't Newton who worked with gas in a vacuum.

Correct. Newton just explained force - apples dropping due gravity, etc. And when a kid's balloon full of compressed air is released anywhere and the air escapes from the it, the balloon flies away - not due to gravity. Works in vacuum! I doubt kid's balloons were around when Newton studied falling apples. What do you think?

[Boethius]

Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.

The problem with accepting this simple and undisputable fact is that it renders a lot of other discussions pointless, such as whether the Curiosity Rover could have descended on Mars the way NASA says it did and with the amount of fuel allotted. It´s not easy to give up all those otherwise laudable efforts at physics and calculus.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Flabbergasted.

Space flight is another one of those things presented as real that simply doesn't exist.

There are people with a vested interest, either personally or professionally, in keeping these types of myths alive.

Simon, if you want to close the thread you'll have no argument from me.

[simonshack]

Simon, if you want to close the thread you'll have no argument from me.

Not at all, dear Boethius! I'm enjoying this thread muchly - as it helps me understand exactly how NASA gets away with their BS, on a more scientific level. Again, I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but just today I learned something hugely interesting with regards to kinetic energy which, I must assume, NASA has never heard about!... I wish to reassure Heiwa that the following won't ruffle a hair of Newton's noble scalp - and that no apples have been harmed during the making of this post.



So here we go. As you well know, NASA's most extraordinary claim concerning propulsion physics is that their powerful rockets "do not push on air" when rising up to the skies. Air, they say, has absolutely nothing to do with propelling their spaceships - at all. We are told (again and again and ad nauseam) that it all has to do - exclusively - with Newton's laws, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - so just get used to it, folks!" Now, a favorite NASA analogy is that of the RECOIL of a shotgun when firing a bullet. They'll say that the flame shot out from the rocket nozzle is just like a bullet exiting a shotgun, causing an equal and opposite recoil reaction and so pushing the rocket forwards. Therefore, NASA claims, rockets work fine both in the atmosphere and in a vacuum - since ALL OF their propulsive power comes from this equal action/reaction physics rule.

Well, as it turns out, this action/reaction isn't equal at all :

Misconceptions about recoil
Although energy must be conserved, this does not mean that the kinetic energy of the bullet must be equal to the recoil energy of the gun: in fact, it is many times greater. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approximately 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy of the gun is less than 7 Joules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

The reason for the recoil's kinetic energy being about 250 times weaker than the bullet's has to do with mass:

Physics of firearms - Kinetic Energy
However, the smaller mass of the bullet, compared to that of the gun-shooter system, allows significantly more kinetic energy to be imparted to the bullet than to the shooter. The ratio of the kinetic energies is the same as the ratio of the masses (and is independent of velocity). Since the mass of the bullet is much less than that of the shooter there is more kinetic energy transferred to the bullet than to the shooter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_firearms
[Physics buffs! Please go to the link and check out the relevant formulas and equations.]

So am I denying that rockets can fly? Not at all. Here's how I can see them working - in the atmosphere:


Simple, really: In order to vanquish force G - (Gravity and Drag) - the rocket causes an Action/Reaction (as of Newton's 3d law) between force A (rocket flame) and force R (the air/atmosphere). Force A will also add to the equation an extra recoil effect "r". The sum of R and "r" will provide (as of Newton's 2nd law)the needed acceleration to vanquish force G.

(Note that the kinetic energy of the recoil is but a marginal force here, given Mass M(rocket) and Mass m(rocket flame).

Now, here's what NASA claims:


To be sure, what NASA will tell you is that there simply is NO force "R"! "Air? Hohoho - no way, we need no air to push our rockets against! All we need is Newton's third law! Have you ever fired a gun in your life, sonny? Ever heard of recoil? "

In any case, here's the stuff they'll keep repeating - until your ears fall off:

"Goddard proved that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against"

"The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel".

[Heiwa]

Re your M16 gun I assure you that the (short lived) recoil force acting on it (the gun), when a bullet is fired, is exactly the same force but in the opposite direction driving the bullet through and away from the gun through air far away, which takes some time, until friction (a new force) acting on the bullet stops the bullet (which takes more time than the recoil).
The recoil force accelerates the gun backward, the force applied to the bullet accelerates at the same time the bullet to high velocity in the other direction.

Unit of force is Newton, N. Unit of energy is Joule, J. Unit of distance is meter, m. And 1 Joule is 1 Newton meter.

If you fire a M16 in space, where there is no friction, the bullet will, after leaving the gun, continue at constant speed with no force at all acting on the bullet (unless some planet gravity attracts the bullet, etc, etc). The M16 gun will move in the other direction in space, at lower velocity because it is heavier than the bullet, with no force acting on it.

[Flabbergasted]

1. If the recoil of a gun absorbed as much energy as the bullet, it would be pretty lethal to fire a gun, and the bullet would lose the momentum required to fulfill its purpose.

2. The continuous stream of gas expelled through a rocket nozzle is not like a bullet fired from a gun. If it were, rockets would launch from the ground in awkward jerks, not smoothly, and would topple over in a matter of seconds. Imagine the destructive effect of a violent recoil on a 100-ton rocket standing upright on a launch pad! It would take more than one "wonderbolt" to keep the pieces together!

[Heiwa]

1. If the recoil of a gun absorbed as much energy as the bullet, it would be pretty lethal to fire a gun, and the bullet would lose the momentum required to fulfill its purpose.

The recoil is a short lived force, unit Newton, that equals the equally short lived opposite force driving away the bullet out of the gun barrel - so that equilibrium is maintained during the fireing. When the bullet has left the gun (end of fireing) each of these two short lived forces are zero (as there is nothing to produce any new forces).
If equilibrium of forces is not maintained before, during and after the fireing, the gun+bullet will simply, magically fly away somewhere.
When fireing a gun, pls avoid shooting yourself in the foot. Or head!

[Flabbergasted]

Thanks for the advice, Heiwa.

While it´s true that the sum of all the vectors must equal the total energy in the system, there are certainly ways of distributing the energy that will carry out desired effects, such as producing a deadly projectile, at the expense of other, less desirable effects, such as producing a deadly recoil. That would be the kind of thing engineers get paid to figure out.

I would like to hear your analysis of the second point in my last post.

[Heiwa]

2. The continuous stream of gas expelled through a rocket nozzle is not like a bullet fired from a gun. If it were, rockets would launch from the ground in awkward jerks, not smoothly, and would topple over in a matter of seconds. Imagine the destructive effect of a violent recoil on a 100-ton rocket standing upright on a launch pad! It would take more than one "wonderbolt" to keep the pieces together!

When you fire a gun, i.e. pull the trigger, and all works well, gunpowder catches fire inside your gun and hot gases are produced. If the hot gases cannot escape anywhere, the gun will explode in your face ... and that's it. Your brains may blow away.
Normally though, the hot gases of the burning gunpowder will push a bullet through the barrel out of the gun in the direction of the target, whatever it can be? Your gun doesn't blow your brains away. The bullet with mass m accelerates from 0 to exit velocity v (m/s), which requires energy provided by the expanding hot gases in the barrel inside the bullet. The rest of that gunpowder energy warms up the gun and goes up in smoke out of the barrel before/after the bullet has left. So far so good.
If you forget to put a bullet in the barrel in front of the gunpowder ... only the hot gases of the burning gunpowder will escape out of the barrel.
But the result will be the same - there will be a recoil force due to the force applied to the bullet or the hot gases escaping the gun. Newton, you know!
A rocket engine is very similar to a gun without a bullet in the barrel. You modify the barrel into a nozzle and just burn rocket fuel slowly to produce hot gases that can escape through the nozzle into the outside (vacuum) at high speed and ... WHOHZZ ... the recoil force will send you off in the opposite direction.
That is Why Rocketry Works in Vacuum.
The big problem is that you must carry the HEAVY rocket fuel with you and ... http://www.heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ... it doesn't work at all. NASA has just stolen billions of $ from US tax payers since 1961.

[simonshack]

*
Today I giggled the keywords "rocketry vacuum" and found a 3-page-long thread making fun of this discussion at the ...



Naturally, being a 'NASA fan-site', it features a cascade of jeers and sneers at our present debate - while also attempting to lump Cluesforum in with the Flat Earth society and such. However, I found one post by a very active member there rather interesting and, although unintentionally so, quite revealing as to the shambles that NASA is - and this, from the perspective of someone who believes in NASA's 'exploits'. I just LOVE the "good strong dose of REALITY" line...

Agree that NASA has wasted a lot of talent, and they're not TOTALLY to blame (they are a victim of their "managers" every bit as we all are victims of politicians... NASA management could use a good strong dose of REALITY...) The problem is most of these political deals are done under the table, in smoke filled rooms, etc. and most people, even ones involved, don't know a thing about it until it's too late. The other BIG problem is the friggin' revolving door between "public service" and "industry"... the constant moving back and forth just entrenches the rotten system and the players making their fortunes off it... they do their bit on the public payroll, inside NASA or USDA or any of a hundred other agencies, and then have a fat, cushy job waiting on them in industry when the next election puts "the other guys" in the big chair... course the "other guys" usually tap hacks from a competitor company to do the same job that the guy going out was doing...

Too much of that garbage. I've seen it forward and backward in agriculture... 'the system' works the same way regardless of subject matter...
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread ... post545972

*****
Another brief post/comment that inspired me was this one. It quotes a few lines of mine from this thread:

"Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself."

I am guessing he has never heard of a "valve".
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread ... post546009

Well, the problem with valves is that you still need to keep the rocket nozzle open enough, during its ascent towards the vacuum of space (say, at 80km altitude) to produce enough power to counter the force of gravity - and to have your heavy rocket attain the (allegedly) required, staggering escape velocity of 27.000km/h !...

Here's a video by the Swiss fire brigade demonstrating a security valve (shown fitted to a tank at 3:50 into the video) to prevent accidental ruptures of scuba tank nozzles. As you will see, whereas the tank, when ruptured, will briefly be propelled through air like a rocket (earlier in the video), the "security-valved tank" will not go much of anywhere:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyINNUaXa8Q

[sceppy]

Hello all, I've put in the required info into the introductory.
First of all, I'm pleased that some of you have taken the time to look into this rocketry in a vacuum, because I know 100% that it is impossible.
Basically it cannot work.
I admit that is a bold claim, yet, like Boethius and Simon, plus others, have already stated... a vacuum is zero psi.
Bear with my boring start but I feel it's best to add some of the boring stuff in to get to the meat, if you like.
The problem a lot of people don't appear to grasp, is just how powerful atmospheric pressure is, which is around 14.7 psi at sea level.
That doesn't mean a lot to most people, which is fine...yet, if we want to try and solve a puzzle of fabrications, we need to (as in the case of rockets not needing atmosphere)find out just how strong a force we are dealing with, as in the psi of air on earth.
Forgive me if I go kid like here...but it's how I prefer to explain things as I find more logical answers can come from simple experiments and explanations.
So how strong is 14.7 psi?...not very strong right?...or so it appears, because we can flap our arms about in it and we don't feel any real effect from it, so it can't be that strong can it.
Anyone who has a suction cup, go and stick that suction cup to a window pane and push most of the air from it.
You find that the suction cup appears to be sucking on that pane of glass, because there is a little air left inside the cup, which is key to it's sticking.
To a normal thinking person, it simply appears that it's there by.. "suction".. but it's not. It's air pressure "outside" of it that wants to equalize the pressure inside of it but the seal that is perfectly sealing on the window pane will not allow the 14.7 psi air pressure in.
Men have climbed up buildings using them, so we know we are dealing with a huge force.
It's no different than an ocean acting upon a submarine just in reverse order.
Ok, I know you may be bored and thinking, " he's just telling us what we know but in a slightly different way."
Sorry for that... but I need to get to a point to show why rockets not only use the atmosphere but also cannot, no matter what, even get to space, never mind allegedly, orbit.
As has been said...a rocket cannot push against itself from inside, no matter whether they mix any fuel in any chamber inside of it to expand.
A rockets fight into the sky is gas (rocket fuel) against air (atmospheric pressure or psi)..
What gives a rocket it's vertical lift off and push... is expanded gases or fuel into air, in massive proportions due to "hot" thrust.
The point is, the air fights back from being pushed out of the way and creates the long fight up, until one gives in, which as we know, would not be air pressure.

Ok so let's imagine a rocket full of fuel and oxygen (or half full,or whatever, it makes no difference)..in space, in zero psi, against whatever psi is in the craft... which ultimately also doesn't matter. It can be whatever they tell us.
Now unlike earth, which is atmosphere attacking the vacuum, we have the gases in a rocket just itching to fill that apparently endless vacuum... and it "must" do this, no matter what. It has to equalize with the pressure of space.
The way it does this, is... it expands it's gases which will expand the inside of the craft, just like a balloon does inside a vacuum chamber... and the more air taken out of that chamber, the more the balloon expands to fill it, until it breaches that balloon at it's weakest point.
This is exactly what the rocket would do in a vacuum of zero psi. It simply must fill it and "will" do it in a super nano second and I'm being generous here.
The reason is... is because of the vastness of the vacuum against the piddly little ship.
It simply "explodes" (quietly) at it's weakest point and empties it's insides so fast that it would probably be peeled open like a sardine can in super short order. Any liquid inside of it would be immediate gas as well and would disappear because it would be still attempting to expand into the vacuum, only this time the gases are scattered and cannot expand against each other.
As for moving on earth. Anything with enough thrust to push against an atmosphere to overcome the weight of any craft, will ultimately move it and for that thrust needed for the ultimate atmospheric gain... hot gases win, every time for efficiency and speed but atmospheric pressure is 100% required.
I hope I haven't bored you all.

[rusty]

Simon,

By using a valve/nozzle you can evidently limit the amount of gas that can pass from the combustion chamber into outer space. Also, as I understand it, only gases get sucked out by the vaccuum, not liquids or solids. Therefore your allegation that all the liquid fuel would get sucked out is probably not true and the objection posted in the rocketry forum therefore appropriate.

Still the main assumption of this thread that the gas leaving the nozzle into vaccum could not do any work has not sufficiently been refuted, at least to my understanding.

rusty