Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[hoi.polloi]

]Message to Hoi: If you called me bitchy to my face, I'd have to slap you. Being from Minnesota ( I think ), I'm sure you understand.

Flame war doused.

This isn't real life. It's the Internet and I'm a rude admin. Deal.

[Heiwa]

The thrust is the key, obviously, because that's what pushes the dense water at the atmosphere, so fast, that the atmosphere tries to counteract it faster...creating what you see as a spread out fast jet of water, as opposed to a dense pour if you were to have a bottle full of water as it will simply just fall through the air with little resistance and no air inside the rocket for the atmosphere to bother to try and equalize with, so no propulsion.

The thrust or force applied by a propeller to a ship or air plane is what drives the ship or air plane, while the water or air tries to stop the action by friction force. The thrust of a jet engine is just a force applied to the vehicle of the jet engine.
The thrust or force of a rocket engine fitted to a rocket in vacuum space is provided by the displacement of the mass of hot exhaust gases at high velocity through a nozzle of the rocket engine - as per Newton. The rocket will displace in the opposite direction of the escaping hot gases. As we are in space, there is no friction and little gravity applied to the rocket, and the rocket engine thrust/force will change the velocity of the rocket. When you switch off the rocket engine (no exhaust or pollution), the rocket will continue at constant speed only subject to gravity forces of distant planets or the Sun.

Anyone believing that a rocket engine does not work in space is simply wrong. Prove me wrong and earn €1M at http://www.heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

[rusty]

Sorry for being obstinate here, but could someone please clarify my fundamental question? Is is the ratio or the absolute difference between the pressures on the inside and the outside of a container that matters? Or is it something else?

Say you have a can fillled with air at 20 PSI. Say it breaches and implodes when the outside pressure reaches 100 PSI. At what pressure would it implode if the inside pressure was 10 PSI? 50 PSI? 90 PSI? Something else?

And if you have a can filled with 100 PSI that explodes as soon as the outside pressure drops below 20 PSI - what would the outside pressure be that's required to make it explode if is filled with only 50 PSI?

[Starbucked]

The boys and girls at Rocketry Forum believe if you can see it on video, it must be real, and that is part of the problem. Anything that appears real can be simulated via special effects and virtual reality, and it takes a sharp eye and open mind to notice the fakery.

closet astronaut

Besides all this, there's PLENTY of video footage of thrusters working in space, according to this theory, they shouldn't work either, and how could we get the Hubble into orbit.

So here is more video of thrusters firing in a vacuum, just for the Rockettes.
The Money Shots start at the 3:00 mark:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESr9anxT_Bs

[Maat]

The boys and girls at Rocketry Forum believe if you can see it on video, it must be real, and that is part of the problem. Anything that appears real can be simulated via special effects and virtual reality, and it takes a sharp eye and open mind to notice the fakery.

closet astronaut

Besides all this, there's PLENTY of video footage of thrusters working in space, according to this theory, they shouldn't work either, and how could we get the Hubble into orbit.

So here is more video of thrusters firing in a vacuum, just for the Rockettes.
The Money Shots start at the 3:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESr9anxT_Bs

Classic!

"Distance to target now 20 on, 29 meters. ...You see the thrusters of the Soyuz firing as it refines its approach."

3:32 "We see the changing colors as a sunset is in the offing"

Tip: for extra bonus hilarity, turn on the CC auto-translation of the audio (the way it 'hears' the Russian dialogue in English is priceless too)

Just one of many gems:

NASA-CC-comedy.jpg (46.07 KiB) Viewed 7617 times

CC: "on the part of the pesticides congratulations unsuccessful docking"

[Female voice translating for the Russians actually says : "On the part of the Russian's side, congratulations on a successful docking"]

But I think we at Clues 'Pest Control' would have to agree with the CCs' exceptional accuracy on NA$A's loony toons

[simonshack]

So here is more video of thrusters firing in a vacuum, just for the Rockettes.
The Money Shots start at the 3:00 mark:

Lovely maneuver! Those thrusters rock! The P.I.S.S. camera operator too!

And that sudden, 'strobo sunset' adds such a sensual, romantic touch to the scene...


Note: the 'thrust flashes' - lasting only ONE frame - are too brief to be processed by this (speeded up) gif loop...

[Flabbergasted]

I think it is safe to assume that the ideas seeded by this debate on NASA/Disney rocket propulsion and vacuum physics are germinating fast in the minds of those rank-and-file Rocketry Forum members who follow the debate in silence, the non-watch dogs and non-larryds who are sincere enough to digest a new input before thoughtlessly joining in the jeering and sneering.

Or am I being naïve?

The thing about ideas is that once they are out of the box, they won´t go back to sleep! Happy assimilation!

[Boethius]

The thrust or force of a rocket engine fitted to a rocket in vacuum space is provided by the displacement of the mass of hot exhaust gases at high velocity through a nozzle of the rocket engine - as per Newton. The rocket will displace in the opposite direction of the escaping hot gases.

The above holds true as long as we are in the atmosphere.

As we are in space, there is no friction and little gravity applied to the rocket, and the rocket engine thrust/force will change the velocity of the rocket.

Here's where you rocketry guys lose me. Any Rocketry Forum specialist feel free to pipe in here:

1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?

2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?

3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?

4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?

5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy? Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy. Pressure against ship = potential Energy. A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.

When you switch off the rocket engine (no exhaust or pollution), the rocket will continue at constant speed only subject to gravity forces of distant planets or the Sun.

Now this we agree on. Every object with mass moving around in space is doing so because it was pushed on by some unknown initial force (Big Bang, Hand of God, Breath of the Dragon, etc...). These objects only change speed or path because of gravitational field interaction or collision with another solid object.

Why do you feel rockets are an exception to the above? Why should exhaust gas affect rockets in space?

Anyone believing that a rocket engine does not work in space is simply wrong.

And I thought you didn't believe in NASA. Why did your views change? To say you are against NASA and believe in space rockets does not compute. You are either confused or misrepresenting one or some of your beliefs.

Prove me wrong and earn €1M at http://www.heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

Your "Heiwa Challenge 2" only makes understanding your beliefs and convictions even more difficult.

[Boethius]

I think it is safe to assume that the ideas seeded by this debate on NASA/Disney rocket propulsion and vacuum physics are germinating fast in the minds of those rank-and-file Rocketry Forum members who follow the debate in silence, the non-watch dogs and non-larryds who are sincere enough to digest a new input before thoughtlessly joining in the jeering and sneering.

Or am I being naïve?

The thing about ideas is that once they are out of the box, they won´t go back to sleep! Happy assimilation!

It's the Wizard of Oz effect. Just trust in NASA and do not look behind the curtain. Do not investigate their claims with respect to the laws of physics and chemistry. Investigation of NASA science is heresy. That's why the people on those forums are running after us with burning torches and pitchforks.

NASA is science education for a large segment of the population. Even though many people are aware of Newton and his laws they only know them in practice via NASA's explanations/demonstrations. They don't realize that Newton was working with solid bodies and not gasses. The folks working with gasses like Boyle and Joule are ignored by NASA because their results disagree with the official story.

Many people want to be a part of the exciting world of scientific discovery, the development of new technologies, the opening of new frontiers. The vast majority don't have the tools or the training to participate at a meaningful level so they just follow along looking at the pretty pictures, gasping at the bold exploits of space travelers and sitting at the feet of the wise scientists while pearls of wisdom drop from their lips.

Remember that some of the best and the brightest, like Chuck Yeager, who could have done anything he wanted, stayed the hell away from NASA once he saw what it like to fly a rocket in the upper atmosphere.

[sceppy]

The thrust is the key, obviously, because that's what pushes the dense water at the atmosphere, so fast, that the atmosphere tries to counteract it faster...creating what you see as a spread out fast jet of water, as opposed to a dense pour if you were to have a bottle full of water as it will simply just fall through the air with little resistance and no air inside the rocket for the atmosphere to bother to try and equalize with, so no propulsion.

The thrust or force applied by a propeller to a ship or air plane is what drives the ship or air plane, while the water or air tries to stop the action by friction force. The thrust of a jet engine is just a force applied to the vehicle of the jet engine.
The thrust or force of a rocket engine fitted to a rocket in vacuum space is provided by the displacement of the mass of hot exhaust gases at high velocity through a nozzle of the rocket engine - as per Newton. The rocket will displace in the opposite direction of the escaping hot gases. As we are in space, there is no friction and little gravity applied to the rocket, and the rocket engine thrust/force will change the velocity of the rocket. When you switch off the rocket engine (no exhaust or pollution), the rocket will continue at constant speed only subject to gravity forces of distant planets or the Sun.

Anyone believing that a rocket engine does not work in space is simply wrong. Prove me wrong and earn €1M at http://www.heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

Let's use a ship and plane as an example of a rocket.
I know it's not a rocket scenario but the principles are essentially similar.
A ship, uses it's propeller to propel it over the water as it floats and naturally it has to overcome friction as everything does.
It's harder for the ship to actually get in to motion, due to its mass against propulsion, so it basically needs a full speed ahead scenario to force it into motion and create momentum.
Once that happens, it will glide along the water... cutting through it like a heavy knife through chilled butter.
Basically it's mass overcomes the water friction.

The plane uses it's propellers or jet engines as simply propulsion, just like the ship, except it uses air, instead of water to propel it.
It needs to gain enough thrust from those propellers to take off...and as we all know...a plane uses maximum thrust on take off, then the wings take over, because the speed of the plane creates a rush of air over and under the wings.
Air rushes over the top of the wing faster than under it, due to the wings shape, which creates low pressure above and high pressure below it, which lifts the wings, so essentially, it's like the ship, as in, it's gliding along the air, just as the ship is gliding through the water.
So we have the fuel inside the ship and the plane, which operates the engines that turn the propellers , which are 'outside' of the ship and the plane so they both have to do work in a liquid or atmosphere.

A rocket mixes fuel and oxygen in a chamber at high pressure, very similar to a jet engine, only the jet engine grabs it's oxygen from the air and compresses it, then mixes with the fuel in a combustion chamber to turn turbine blades.
This is probably another thing why people get stumped, because they get told that the rocket does not need air, as it carries it's own oxygen.
The problem here is...the oxygen and fuel mix are for one purpose and one purpose only, which is to achieve high combustion in a chamber to create massive 'thrust'.
Once that burning fuel thrusts out of that rocket nozzle, it immediately consumes the oxygen in the atmosphere under it, creating a huge low pressure void, that has to be filled by the higher pressure under and around it and like the high pressure against low pressure under a planes wing , it creates a action (burning fuel=low pressure atmosphere) and reaction (high pressure atmosphere) creating the lift required.

[pov603]

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?)

In construction parlance EOT means 'extension of time', so rather apt for this thread I believe.

[simonshack]

Tip: for extra bonus hilarity, turn on the CC auto-translation of the audio (the way it 'hears' the Russian dialogue in English is priceless too)

Just one of many gems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESr9anxT_Bs
CC: "on the part of the pesticides congratulations unsuccessful docking"

[Female voice translating for the Russians actually says : "On the part of the Russian's side, congratulations on a successful docking"]

But I think we at Clues 'Pest Control' would have to agree with the CCs' exceptional accuracy on NA$A's loony toons

Good Heavens, Maat - that CC translator is indeed "exceptionally accurate" !

I've been looking for more such gems - but not to distract from this specific 'rockets in vacuum' debate, I have posted them over at our I$$ thread: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2385568

[Heiwa]

The thrust or force of a rocket engine fitted to a rocket in vacuum space is provided by the displacement of the mass of hot exhaust gases at high velocity through a nozzle of the rocket engine - as per Newton. The rocket will displace in the opposite direction of the escaping hot gases.

The above holds true as long as we are in the atmosphere.

No, replacing the outside atmosphere with vacuum doesn't change anything. The displacement of the mass of hot exhaust gases at high velocity through a nozzle of the rocket engine - as per Newton (into the vacuum) - will displace the rocket in the opposite direction (in the vacuum).

Newton is right everywhere. You are wrong. Forces are difficult to visulize though. Imagine a rocket whizzing by at 10 000 m/s velocity in vacuum space ... and no force is applied.

On the contrary a ship propeller must always apply a big thrust (force) on a ship to make 20 knots as another force (friction, etc) is applied to the ship in the other direction. Both forces have same magnitude though - balance - equilibrium - and the vessel makes 20 knots.
If you remove the force of the propeller the vessel stops. If you can remove the friction, etc, force the vessel will accelerate to speed of light.
Newton, you know!

[sceppy]

My last post has disappeared. Does anyone know what might have happened, as I spent ages putting the diagrams together.

[Boethius]

Heiwa, it appears, has spent years calculating the forces and fuel requirements for rocketry. Now someone comes and tells him that all of those forces are, in fact, 0: no need to calculate fuel expended. Why calculate the number of reindeer needed to pull Santa's sleigh when Santa doesn't exist?

He was initially was against NASA but now finds himself on their side because he doesn't want to see all of his years of work go down the drain.

What we have here, I feel, is a "Bridge on the River Kwai" situation (a classic film by David Lean). In it, David Niven's character leads a group of POW's building a bridge for the Japanese during WWII that British Special Forces are later sent to destroy. Niven's character is so proud of the bridge he built that he is willing to rat out the Special Forces, help the Japanese, rather than see his bridge destroyed.

Be careful lest your pride lead you to take up your enemy's cause.

Anyone believing that a rocket engine does not work in space is simply wrong.

Classic NASA shill-speak.

From the Heiwaco.com web site

It is not possible to fly to the Moon and back (inspite of Wikipedia/NASA shills suggesting otherwise) because you need plenty of fuel/energy to do it using the best rocket engines available by the military very secret industry, but you cannot carry all the fuel with you, because you get too heavy.

What is so secret about NASA apart from the fact that they hide that rockets don't work in space?
No amount of fuel will help you if your plan is to use gas as a propellent in the vacuum of space.
Note how he makes it seem that he is against NASA shills.

http://www.heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm