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?

Postby Selene on January 30th, 2015, 8:51 pm

Priceless, simon. :D

Why should we fear; and what? The laws?
They all are armed in virtue's cause;
And aiming at the self-same end,
Satire is always virtue's friend.

Charles Churchill (1763)
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Boethius on January 30th, 2015, 10:26 pm

A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience the force. Forces only exist as a result of an interaction.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-2/The-Meaning-of-Force

NASA and it's apologists stick to the mantra of F=MA while closing their eyes to the fact that the lack of interaction between ship and gas means there can be no force.

As I said when I first started this thread NASA's "massflow equation, F=MA" is like the old joke of which side of the house does the rooster's egg fall. The trick is to realize that roosters don't lay eggs. The trick of understanding the NASA psy-op is realizing that gas does not produce a force in a vacuum. Lucky for us James Prescott Joules found that out over 100 years ago.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 1:39 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Pilgrim on January 31st, 2015, 12:41 am

Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate :)
Could Daffy i wonder push against those medicine balls fast enough as they are being pulled out into the massive space vacuum by an infinitely greater force of a huge space vacuum which i speculate would be far greater than Daffy's muscles so no thrust can be produced. As in the case of letting a balloon of in the nozzle of a vacuum cleaner if the vacuum cleaner is powerful enough. It will stay on the end of the nozzle and not go buzzing around your room.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby simonshack on January 31st, 2015, 1:08 am

Pilgrim wrote:Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate :)


Dear Pilgrim,

I should probably have used the Woody Woodpecker character...

Here's Woody explaining how rocketry works - ( starting at 1:20). Enjoy ! ^_^


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osnqu6ijNXM
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Pilgrim on January 31st, 2015, 1:47 am

simonshack wrote:
Pilgrim wrote:Simon, the Daffy Duck image was hilarious though a Disney character may have been more appropriate :)


Dear Pilgrim,

I should probably have used the Woody Woodpecker character...

Here's Woody explaining how rocketry works - ( starting at 1:20). Enjoy ! ^_^

I did enjoy. You are right Simon, who can deny Warner Bros and all the rest are not into this space scam up to their eyeballs too.?
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby simonshack on January 31st, 2015, 5:51 pm

*


THE VACUUM THRUST CHALLENGE

TrainPropulsion_01.jpg



Dear Cluesforum members and readers,

I am hereby announcing my proposal for "THE VACUUM THRUST CHALLENGE", an earthly enterprise / experiment which may (or may not) allow NASA, ESA (and the various space agencies of this world) to prove / demonstrate to the public, once and for all, that their space-going rockets work as advertised.

To be sure, ESA (the European Space agency) claims, for instance, that their big "ARIANE 5" rockets (weight: 760.000 kg) will not only take off vertically from the ground, keep accelerating in the atmosphere and reach speeds up to 35.000kmh/ - but also that these speeds will be maintained as they reach the so-called vacuum of space.

Ariane5_launch01.jpg


Let us remind ourselves about a few basic / standard NASA & ESA claims, which can roughly be transcribed as follows:

-"Rockets do not push against air. Atmospheric pressure is of no consequence to the ascent of rockets. What propels them is the fuel mass being ejected downwards and out of the engine nozzle - thus exerting an upwards, opposite & equal force / reaction (as of Newton's 3d law) against the rocket itself or, more precisely, against the top of their combustion chambers."
-"Rockets are actually more efficient in the vacuum of space (where aerodynamic drag drops to zero)".
-"Rockets maneuver at will in the vacuum of space thanks to smaller, directional rockets (Vernier thrusters)."



So, with the above statements in mind, I have designed the below experimental contraption. It is an Ariane 5 rocket whose three nozzles are attached (via three valves) onto a standard railroad gas tank car. Instead of gas, it 'contains' vacuum. The objective of the experiment is, of course, to verify whether this contraption will be propelled forward, once the valves are opened - and, simultaneously, the rocket engines are fired:

TrainPropulsion_01.jpg


I will now only half-jokingly suggest that this experiment is well within feasibility. See, if everyone of our approx 1400 Cluesforum members chips in with a small contribution, we might well raise the budget needed to buy / rent an old railroad gas tank. As for the ESA rocket, I will do my best to lobby / convince the folks at ESA-Italy (whose offices just happen to be down the road from my house) to provide us with an old Ariane rocket...

Hey, we may then recoup our monies / investment by staging a public event where people can place their bets as to exactly WHAT will happen!

In any case, the gambling box office is already open: place your bets! What do YOU think will happen ?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Flabbergasted on February 1st, 2015, 3:41 am

I don´t see the point in the experiment. The moment the rocket engines are started, the tank will cease to be a "vacuum tank". In fact, it makes no difference what is or isn´t in the tank to begin with. It will explode and the rocket will ram into the nearest obstacle, killing 11 scientists.

The whole point of "space vacuum" is that it is "infinite". No gas or surface to interact with. No transfer of force between the rocket and the environment. No propulsion.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 725
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby queuebert on February 1st, 2015, 7:59 pm

In the thread One thing no one can disprove... at the Living Moon forum "Logos" makes the same case presented in this thread, namely that rockets won't work in a vacuum, starting on page 4:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum1/index.php?topic=7474.45

As could be expected, one finds the usual (calculated?) obtuseness, non-replys and going-in-circles goofiness. It's hard to tell whether it's genuine misunderstanding or misdirection--probably both.

Anyhow, I wonder if the PowersThatBe (PTB) really need a lot of shills or if the public mostly does a sufficient job of thought policing itself, such that merely having a few operatives in key positions as "sheepherders" is enough to keep the people spellbound.
queuebert
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 7:34 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Pilgrim on February 2nd, 2015, 12:05 am

Flabbergasted wrote:I don´t see the point in the experiment. The moment the rocket engines are started, the tank will cease to be a "vacuum tank". In fact, it makes no difference what is or isn´t in the tank to begin with. It will explode and the rocket will ram into the nearest obstacle, killing 11 scientists.

The whole point of "space vacuum" is that it is "infinite". No gas or surface to interact with. No transfer of force between the rocket and the environment. No propulsion.


I guess the question is, in the micro second to fill the tank would any thrust be produced, once it's at equilibrium with the same pressure as the combustion chamber then (assuming for the sake of argument it does not explode) it will go nowhere but according to NASA and their apologetics some thrust should be produced even if for a micro second before the tank fills. Assume a much larger vacuum tank, perhaps a train of a thousand such vacuum tanks all connected.
The experiment could be done on a much smaller scale of course using a very small amateur rocket against a large tank of vacuum or even a firework rocket.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 10:33 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Flabbergasted on February 2nd, 2015, 2:58 am

Pilgrim wrote:The experiment could be done on a much smaller scale of course using a very small amateur rocket against a large tank of vacuum or even a firework rocket.

No, it could not, because nobody would expect a tiny firework rocket to tow an enormous tank.

When I said "No gas or surface to interact with" I was including the internal walls of the tank and the tracks on which the contraption is supposed to run.

There truly is no way to physically simulate conditions of "space travel". All we have is physics and computer models.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 725
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Cobra Commander on April 15th, 2015, 1:43 am

Flabbergasted wrote:I don´t see the point in the experiment. The moment the rocket engines are started, the tank will cease to be a "vacuum tank". In fact, it makes no difference what is or isn´t in the tank to begin with. It will explode and the rocket will ram into the nearest obstacle, killing 11 scientists.

The whole point of "space vacuum" is that it is "infinite". No gas or surface to interact with. No transfer of force between the rocket and the environment. No propulsion.

Ha! You got that wrong. It would reportedly kill 9 scientists, with 11 injured.

In all seriousness though, if you guys could ever figure out how to make that experiment work, I would be able to get us a discount on a railroad gas tank car, since I have a lot of family in the railroad industry. That being said, it still wouldn't be cheap, and you can bet your ass NASA would do everything in their power to shut us down.
Cobra Commander
Member
 
Posts: 85
Joined: August 3rd, 2014, 6:45 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Selene on June 18th, 2015, 9:02 pm


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLJpOAl2RRM

Pretty funny simple video where a British guy explains what process he (and as far as I understand also the others including me in this topic) thinks rockets move as opposed to the NASal Propaganda "Physics".

Simple experiment with a balloon car shows the NASagonising "explanation" doesn't hold.

Selene

Knowledge is the sure and undoubted resolution by experiment of all opinions concerning the truth....Experiment is manifest demonstration of the truth, and resolution the putting away of doubt. We cannot be resolved of any doubt save by experiment, and therefore is no better way to make it than on ourselves. Let us therefore verify what we have said above concerning the truth, beginning with ourselves.
Gerhard Dorn (c. 1530-1584)
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby pmb on July 22nd, 2015, 9:15 pm

Someone told me about this forum and thread when they asked about thrust and I provided an answer. I was told that many, if not all, of the people in this thread assert that Newton's third law can't be used to show that a rocket engine works in a vacuum. May I ask those of you with this opinion why you think that?

I also understand that everyone rejects the notion that rockets have never been put into "space" (i.e. the vacuum above the Earth's atmosphere) because you hold that NASA has been lying to everyone all these decades about rocket engines. What evidence do you have to support that position? Since there were close to 400,000 scientist, engineers etc. who worked on the Apollo project in one way or another do you also hold that those 400,000 people have been lying all these years as well?

Since its very easy to show that a rocket engine works in a vacuum has anyone ever tried it? I.e. have you ever tried to build a vacuum chamber and fired a rocket engine in the vacuum chamber? Since the rocket engine would have to be small due to the large forces of pressure on such a chamber for large chambers one would have to use a very small engine. One could also model it using something other than a gas such as a chamber firing rubber pellets.

Have you considered that anybody who could prove that you were right experimentally would win a Nobel prize, which is about $1,000,000 if I recall correctly. That's a strong motivation for those with a large vacuum chamber at their place of business to try it. I know I would.

Since things like Direct TV works by satellites and you need a satellite dish in your yard pointing at it in its geostationary position in space, how did it get there?

When private corporations launch a rocket, where does it go if not into space? It should land and crash, right? Why has that never been seen? We all saw the results of it when Challenger crashed. The same thing would happen after it passed out of visual range. Has any of you ever thought of buying cheap radar equipment and tracking such a rocket launch?

How did the mirrors that are on the moon that we bounce laser beams off of get there?

Last question: Are you folks open to hearing the standard textbook derivation of the rocket equation? If you've already seen the derivation and claim that it's wrong then can you please show me the post in which that was done? I'm assuming that everyone here has an open mind, correct? I can tell you that I do. I had to in order to become a physicist. One has to in order to grasp quantum mechanics and relativity.

Thanks everyone. I appr
pmb
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: July 6th, 2015, 9:16 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Selene on July 22nd, 2015, 9:46 pm

Hi Pete, welcome to Cluesforum. Have you read quite a bit before registering?

On satellites ("geostationary" and others) there's a separate thread where you find info on how to obtain the huge amounts of satellite data and signals (including your DirectTV) we receive on Earth.

As a physicist you also should know one doesn't need a 50x50 cm mirror to bounce back signals (radio waves, lasers or sunlight) from the surface of the Moon; the celestial body itself reflects signals easily, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do so before the Apollo "moon" missions (1963 the Soviets did it and radio wave bouncing was done already in 1946 (!) and you wouldn't be able to see a thing at nights with (full) Moonlight...

On the rockets in 'space', apart from purely mechanical physics you have a chemical-physical challenge due to not only the Pressure problem (the supposed vaccuum) but more importantly a Temperature problem. See for elaboration my first post in this topic.

As a physicist you know that material properties are highly T-dependent, so a "rocket" in "space" would have the problem that ~50% of the surface (sun-lit) suffers from very high T's (due to radiation) and the other half or even more of the "rocket" would suffer near-zero T's.

Take the thermal conductivity for instance. Could you as physical expert make a calculation on how this works?

50% aluminium rocket surface @ -let's say- +270 C and the other part at -NASA-claimed- -270 C, or some mere 3 K!

What effect should those extreme conditions have on the rocket and everything inside it, you think?

I really look forward to your physical explanation Pete.

Best of luck and thank you in advance for your contributions,

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Selene on July 23rd, 2015, 5:27 am

Professor Pete, specialised expert in a field of relative relativity, I answer in a separate post because quoting doesn't work well on this smartphone...

"Rude comments"? Can you point out where I've been rude? I may be demanding, but that's not rude and only logical after your own claims and call for quantity.

I simply asked for some basic physical explanations in your own words. I am not (interested in) discussing with Wikipedia and yes, I know how to look up stuff there.

You were the one presenting yourself as an educator, as someone who is used to explain relatively advanced and hard subjects in an easy-to-grasp way. Using sketches, equations and simple language to bring across a point you think you have.

On top of the pretty ridiculous hints that "Apollo was real and they placed a mirror on the Moon", your understanding of satellites and their data and more things quoted by Flabbergasted, it was you and only you who started with the Mickey Mouse magical words "heat shield" that would "solve the problem of the extreme T differences and thus very high heat flow from very hot to stone cold". You really want me to believe you I suppose (otherwise starting a discussion would be a bit useless) but give no explanation whatsoever. While you complain about the lack of quantitative content on a forum you just "skimmed", you seem to refrain from providing that quantitative reflections (pun intended) yourself and refer to Wickedpedia instead.

Do you do that in your lessons too? "Hey student with a critical remark, here you have the collection of human wisdom called Whiskypedia, I will not use this whiteboard behind me, you can just look up what you want to know"...?

Then please don't be surprised I claim my education money back, ok? I'd rather spend it on an Aldrin puppet or cardboard LEM, if you don't mind.

In short; you claim a lot but seem impossible to back up the claims with the quantitative explanations that you claim to care about so much....

Coming back to Simons post; what about some quantitative work on your own words Simon quotes from your email? I am all ears and as I recall well it was your motivation to join here in the first place?

Some progress, and not leaving us in the cold dark space?

Selene

PS: I agree with the others. While English is my third language, it should be your first... My English is far from perfect but the numerous mistakes you made in just a few posts don't really convince me you're a US American. I cannot change that; only you can do that...
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests