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: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:29 am

I just realized why Newton's 3rd Law doesn't apply to NASA rocket engines.

The rocket is not pushing the gas into the atmosphere so there is no reason for the gas to be pushing back on the rocket.

So how does the gas come out of the rocket? By thermal expansion, not by the rocket pushing on the gas.

The thermally expanding gas pushes on the air beneath the rocket and the air pushes back causing it to disperse allowing the gas to hit the launch pad which pushes back without deforming throwing the gas back towards the rocket.

All NASA rocket engines do is supply liquid to a nozzle where a combustion occurs. The rocket is not pumping, pushing or forcing the expanding gases away from the rocket so the rocket has no claim to the "equal and opposite" force from the expanding gases.

Think of a flamethrower and how the blast doesn't push back the operator.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:41 pm

Although a rocket carries fuel in its tanks the expansion of said fuel takes place outside of the rocket, or more specifically underneath the rocket. Once the engine places the fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, which is open to the outside, the rocket loses all connection to the fuel, which will expand downwards and away from the rocket when ignited.

This is also why a rocket cannot work in the vacuum of space. Because there the fuel underneath the rocket would shoot out into space without any thrust even without Joule Expansion.

It seems so simple to me now after spending so much time researching how rockets work. The whole thing is loaded with hoax and psy-op, the thought that "rocket science" is something sophisticated and intellectually challenging seems silly. A rocket is nothing more than a tin can sitting on top of an explosion.

Of course the people who claim they are interested in rockets are really interested in space exploration and are willing to overlook various irregularities and believe certain lies to keep their dreams alive. In reality there is no program currently presented to the public by any country that has any hope of assisting man in traveling through space.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Selene on Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:45 am

Boethius wrote:Although a rocket carries fuel in its tanks the expansion of said fuel takes place outside of the rocket, or more specifically underneath the rocket. Once the engine places the fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, which is open to the outside, the rocket loses all connection to the fuel, which will expand downwards and away from the rocket when ignited.

This is also why a rocket cannot work in the vacuum of space. Because there the fuel underneath the rocket would shoot out into space without any thrust even without Joule Expansion.

It seems so simple to me now after spending so much time researching how rockets work. The whole thing is loaded with hoax and psy-op, the thought that "rocket science" is something sophisticated and intellectually challenging seems silly. A rocket is nothing more than a tin can sitting on top of an explosion.

Of course the people who claim they are interested in rockets are really interested in space exploration and are willing to overlook various irregularities and believe certain lies to keep their dreams alive. In reality there is no program currently presented to the public by any country that has any hope of assisting man in traveling through space.


You're right, Boethius. Either way, by lack of pressure or temperature (or both), everything dissipates. It just vanishes. In the vast nothingness of Space.

There's no physics that would allow it to work. It just means we are "stuck" to this planet and aliens couldn't visit us.

It's just the facade of beautiful pictures, in which I believed for so many years which is so hard to break. Even at room temperature.

Isn't it better to talk about the relative merits of washing machines than the relative strength of rockets? Isn't this the kind of competition you want?
Richard Nixon (to Chrutschev) (1959)
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:32 am

Selene wrote:You're right, Boethius. Either way, by lack of pressure or temperature (or both), everything dissipates. It just vanishes. In the vast nothingness of Space.

There's no physics that would allow it to work. It just means we are "stuck" to this planet and aliens couldn't visit us.

It's just the facade of beautiful pictures, in which I believed for so many years which is so hard to break. Even at room temperature.

Isn't it better to talk about the relative merits of washing machines than the relative strength of rockets? Isn't this the kind of competition you want?
Richard Nixon (to Chrutschev) (1959)


Selene, you bring up an important concept that is not easy to grasp after a lifetime of indoctrination and programming: why rockets cannot work in outer space. When I started this thread a few years back I was not certain about this. I was concerned that I might have made a mistake. I was nervous that there was something I was missing. It is only through the course of participating in this thread that I was able to finally prove to myself that rockets do not work in space.

Imagine a combustion chamber inside a rocket filled with high pressure gas. Now you open a nozzle in that chamber to release the gas. The gas will evacuate the chamber without pressing against the ship. Why?

Because the first molecule closest to the nozzle is pushed out by the pressure of the gas behind it. The molecule closest to the nozzle obviously doesn't push back against all that high pressure gas when it can escape outside, which it does, allowing the molecule behind it to take its place and be the new closest one. At the same time all of the other molecules will move closer to the opening. The same way that when you turn a bottle of water upside down and open the cap, all the water starts to pour out and none of the water remaining presses against the top, it all moves towards the opening, where he pressure is lowest. In this same way you cannot have the gas of a rocket pressing against the top of the combustion chamber while the gas is emptying out of he bottom. It sounds silly but this is what we have been lead to believe by our so called "top scientists." This is the basis of the "Newton's Third Law" argument, assuming the gas leaving the rocket presses against the rocket while it leaves, which is impossible.

Since it has been drilled into our heads our entire lives that Rocket Science is complex and difficult to understand we never see in fact how simple it really is. It is in fact simplest of all in a vacuum. The gas just leaves the rocket without pushing on it at all.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:11 pm

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?

B)

Wow, it's sounding pretty ridiculous to have space travel by any conventional means they claim to use.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Selene on Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:48 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: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?

B)

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:

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? :unsure:

[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)
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:59 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: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?

B)

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

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:22 am

Boethius wrote: 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

Funny, innit? :P You've gotta love their accusations of "denialism" ! Hey Joe, are YOU a "denialist"? :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:48 am

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

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:34 pm

*

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. At this altitude, the air density is about 1/2200000 the density on the surface."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:34 pm

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

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Pilgrim on Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:25 pm

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.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:19 am

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

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:56 am

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.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5054
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:29 pm

HoiPolloi wrote: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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps! :P


*****
ps: In case anyone wonders, yes - this a satirical (and hopefully a bit humorous) post of mine.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6667
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests