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.

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby pov603 on Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:53 pm

Boethius wrote:
Flabbergasted wrote: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.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby simonshack on Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:10 pm

Maat wrote:
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:
Image
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" ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

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: viewtopic.php?p=2385568#p2385568
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby Heiwa on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:23 am

Boethius wrote:
Heiwa wrote: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!
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby sceppy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:16 pm

My last post has disappeared. Does anyone know what might have happened, as I spent ages putting the diagrams together.
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby Boethius on Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:58 pm

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.

heiwa wrote: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
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:38 pm

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


It was safely moved here, Sceppy - by Hoi. Please read his advice in his post below yours. Thanks - and sorry for the extra time / trouble this will cause you - but I agree with Hoi's move.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby Heiwa on Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:55 pm

It is very simple! Rockets create thrust by expelling mass backwards in a high speed jet. Chemical rockets create thrust by reacting propellants within a combustion chamber into a very hot gas at high pressure, which is then expanded and accelerated by passage through a nozzle at the rear of the rocket. The amount of the resulting forward force, known as thrust, that is produced is the mass flow rate of the propellants multiplied by their exhaust velocity (relative to the rocket), as specified by Newton’s third law of motion. Thrust is therefore the equal and opposite reaction that accelerates (or decelerates) the rocket in vacuum.
One problem is, if you intend, e.g. round trips to the Moon as done by NASA 1969-1972, that you cannot carry the required amount of fuel (propellants) to fire the rocket engine. You get too heavy. Another problem is to direct the force correctly in 3-D space. If the force is applied in the wrong direction, you will go to hell.
Therefore all NASA Moon trips are fraud. It is not possible to go to the Moon. But the rocket works in vacuum.
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby sceppy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:01 pm

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


It was safely moved here, Sceppy - by Hoi. Please read his advice in his post below yours. Thanks - and sorry for the extra time / trouble this will cause you - but I agree with Hoi's move.
Yes, I seen it. Cheers.
I'm fine with it all. I was just curious as to where it went to because I thought it may have been a glitch.
Advice heeded.
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby simonshack on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:26 pm

Heiwa wrote:Newton, you know!


I also like Newton, Heiwa. But NASA certainly do not like him, or else they would respect his good'ol laws of physics.


NASA and NEWTON

See, NASA says that, in order to reach Earth Orbit their rockets need to accelerate to approx 8km/s. That's pretty damn fast, if you ask me - it's about 28.800km/h :

Rocketing into Orbit
"To reach Earth orbit, a rocket must accelerate to about 8 kilometers per second
—about 25 times faster than the cruising speed of a passenger jet."
http://howthingsfly.si.edu/propulsion/rocket-propulsion

I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again. Sorry, folks - I know... you've heard this one before!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies. But let's get on.

Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this gif diagram:
Image

Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby sceppy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:24 pm

Heiwa wrote:It is very simple! Rockets create thrust by expelling mass backwards in a high speed jet. Chemical rockets create thrust by reacting propellants within a combustion chamber into a very hot gas at high pressure, which is then expanded and accelerated by passage through a nozzle at the rear of the rocket. The amount of the resulting forward force, known as thrust, that is produced is the mass flow rate of the propellants multiplied by their exhaust velocity (relative to the rocket), as specified by Newton’s third law of motion. Thrust is therefore the equal and opposite reaction that accelerates (or decelerates) the rocket in vacuum.
One problem is, if you intend, e.g. round trips to the Moon as done by NASA 1969-1972, that you cannot carry the required amount of fuel (propellants) to fire the rocket engine. You get too heavy. Another problem is to direct the force correctly in 3-D space. If the force is applied in the wrong direction, you will go to hell.
Therefore all NASA Moon trips are fraud. It is not possible to go to the Moon. But the rocket works in vacuum.

A rockets hot gases, thrust into the dense atmosphere, makes the heat from them do an immediate about turn with the dense atmosphere under them, in hot pursuit as the hot gases slide up and down the entire rocket... all around it... which the dense atmosphere wants to equalize so it pushes the rocket up by friction.

It's like sitting in your bath tub with slippery hands and trying to grip the soap. Just think of the high pressure atmosphere as your hands and the hot low pressure atmosphere as the slippery wetness... and the soap as your rocket.

Now try and squeeze it. You can't squeeze it, because it keeps wanting to jump out of your hands. Well, imagine grabbing it with the other, and so on, one fist over the top, like one potato, two potato, three potato, four. That's how your burning fuel rocket works.
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:29 am

simonshack wrote:They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun.


I think the conceptual difference between shotguns and rockets needs to be settled once and for all.

I am not the right person to do this, so I will limit my considerations to the following:

A: The recoil effect of a gun occurs because, for obvious reasons, the barrel is open to the outside at the time the gun powder is ignited. The recoil is simultaneous with the unobstructed forward motion of the bullet. If the cartridge were lodged in a closed chamber, the force of the explosion would be directed in many different directions, and would concentrate on the most fragile part of the structure. There would be a violent jolt, someone would lose an eye or a finger, but there would be no recoil as such.

B: As we have already seen, the combustion chamber of a rocket cannot be open to the outside, especially when "flying" in near-absolute vacuum since the fuel or gas would be lost in an infinitesimal fraction of a second. The gas resulting from the combustion is therefore not led into the environment through an unobstructed "barrel" but through a finely regulated nozzle/valve, in a perfectly continuous flow. In other words, if 100-ton rockets produce any recoil effect at all, it must be negligible.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby rusty on Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:27 am

I think we could put this discussion to rest once and for all if someone could conduct the following experiment:

Take a very small, pressurized bottle with a valve that can be triggered open automatically somehow. Lay it down on a skid or guide rail. Make sure the nozzle is unobstructed and far enough from any other object. Now open the valve and watch the bottle move along the rail until it comes to a halt. Try to put only as much pressure into the bottle that it is enough to move it. Now try this again in a near-vaccuum chamber. If Boethius is right, there should be a noticeable difference. If Heiwa is right, there should be no difference at all.

Anyone?
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby sceppy on Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:59 am

I know I go on about atmospheric pressure but I feel the need to keep mentioning it as it honestly requires people to scrutinise it, to understand its important role in everything we do. From rockets to guns and so on.
The low pressure atmosphere versus high pressure is the key when we are talking about how rockets work, or even guns.

A gun barrel has close to 15 pounds per square inch of pressure inside it. Now when fired...the gun goes through 'two' recoils... but a person just feels one recoil due to the immense speed of the bullet.
The first recoil is obvious, which is the detonation of the bullet out of the shell casing and you get action and reaction of the ignited powder charge.
The second recoil happens, when the hot gases propel the bullet out of the end of the gun barrel. The bullet has expelled most of the 15 psi air inside of the barrel, so once it exits the barrel, the atmosphere immediately wants to equalise the pressure, so it forces its 15 pound psi pressure back inside, which produces the second and most telling recoil.

Now you would think that the pressure going back into the barrel...causing the recoil would make sense as to how the rocket works...but a rocket does not fire bullets.
A rocket BURNS its fuel. That's all it does.
It does not intermittently spit it out... creating a machine gun effect recoil...it simply burns under immense pressure.
Unlike a gun which creates a low pressure environment inside its barrel due to heat, which is immediately filled...a rocket creates 'continuous' heat...but under it...and heat does not like to be thrust downwards...it prefers up.

The thing is...the heat cannot go back up the rocket nozzle, because it's going back up against an even lower pressure, so it deflects around it and up the 'outside' of the rocket.
This is all happening in nano seconds or instantaneous.

Now, as the heat is going up the outer body of the rocket...it's cooling and compressing, due to the denser atmosphere attempting to equalise the pressure... and in doing so, it grips and pushes the rocket all the way up with a friction grip push.

I wish I could find a better way to explain it but I promise you, this is what happens.
sceppy
Member
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:39 pm

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:44 am

rusty wrote:I think we could put this discussion to rest once and for all if someone could conduct the following experiment:

Take a very small, pressurized bottle with a valve that can be triggered open automatically somehow. Lay it down on a skid or guide rail. Make sure the nozzle is unobstructed and far enough from any other object. Now open the valve and watch the bottle move along the rail until it comes to a halt. Try to put only as much pressure into the bottle that it is enough to move it. Now try this again in a near-vaccuum chamber. If Boethius is right, there should be a noticeable difference. If Heiwa is right, there should be no difference at all.

Anyone?


I don´t think it would make us much wiser.

- The air coming out of the bottle would interact with the wall of the vacuum chamber
- The vacuum would cease to be a vacuum
- The bottle would interact with the ground through the rail
- The vacuum chamber would not reproduce a space-like scenario of near-absolute weightlessness
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum

Unread postby rusty on Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:51 am

Flabbergasted wrote:- The air coming out of the bottle would interact with the wall of the vacuum chamber
- The vacuum would cease to be a vacuum
- The bottle would interact with the ground through the rail
- The vacuum chamber would not reproduce a space-like scenario of near-absolute weightlessness


All true, though weightlessness does not matter much here. But, if you keep the bottle very small relative to the size of the chamber, the interfering effects should be minor. I don't say the bottle won't move at all. Still the difference should be evident, if Boethius is correct. If Heiwa is correct, there should be almost no difference at all.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests