HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.
Interrupt  combustion is not relevant.

Elaborate on this because it makes no sense.

I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.

Care to actually bother reading what has been said and responding to that?
It is quite clear the atmosphere magically stacking has nothing to do with it.

Why should you need a nozzle to magically capture the atmosphere in a way which is never observed?
If it is just about pushing into the atmosphere and having it push back, then it shouldn't matter how you do it.
The nozzle only makes sense with conventional physics.

It only has to compress the atmosphere enough to create a barrier in the stack.

And as clearly observed from how the exhaust behaves, it never does that.

I keep saying time and time and time again for people to pay attention

All the while you keep your eyes closed and avoid as much of reality as possible.

Just because we don't accept your BS doesn't mean we aren't paying attention.

Let me try and help you out.

Then do so, rather than appeal to more pathetic distractions.
If you want to help it is quite easy. Actually provide the diagram you said you would.
Show us a diagram which actually has an arrow of force acting on the rocket to move it upwards.
Or you can actually explain what is wrong with the explanations already provided, rather than just dismissing it as hogwash.

Or you could deal with the issue that was raised before you even joined this thread and explain what happens in a vacuum. Tell us how the gas manages to leave the tube, without moving the tube or allowing it to move.

Picture a massive water tank.
Put a nozzle underneath that water tank and open it up.
Tell me where the forces are acting in that flow of water in terms up pushing the water tank up.
You can clearly see the water being expelled from the tank to the ground but where is the opposite push, vertically up into the tank?
If there is none then how in  the hell do you expect your rocket to produce the same opposing force?

See, this is unhelpful. Rather than deal with the issues you just appeal to a completely different situation.
The water tank isn't pressurised. It is just gravity pulling it out. The equal and opposite reaction is on Earth, and the water tank doesn't go flying up.

So how do you expect your refuted rocket idea to work, when you have no force acting on the rocket?

If it did that it would cancel everything out.
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.

WHY?
Don't just baselessly assert garbage and claim that "surely you can see this".
There is absolutely no basis for your claim.

Just look at the rocket. What force is acting on it?
It has a net force from the gas pushing it upwards.

The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called

inertia, because the gas requires a force to move it, and that creates the reactionary force on the rocket.

Again, don't just dismiss things which show you are wrong as nonsense, actually explain what is wrong with it.

First, to super compress the atmosphere it would need to be contained. It it is not. There is no mechanism for the atmosphere to 'crush back'. How would it know to do that? What is the atmosphere pushing against to 'crush back'?

Because you will not accept it can. You refuse to even dare to understand it.
You think you need a container to contain. You don't if you super compress something DIRECTLY.
You've also got to remember that the containment in this scenario is not permanent. It's ongoing, meaning it's catch, compress and release, every second or nano second or whatever time needs to ber placed on the gas on gas fight.
You just refuse to understand it from my side.

Second, the atmosphere gets thinner (weaker) as the rocket ascends. How does an even weaker atmosphere at higher elevations provide the same super compressed 'crush' as with lower elevations?

Loss of mass with the same thrust, meaning the rocket can navigate ever decreasing atmospheric pressure. It's a marriage made in the skies.

Third, you ask where does the atmosphere go below the rocket. Equally, where does the atmosphere go above the rocket?

If you paid attention to everything I said previous, over many pages and many pages in other topics, you'd have a better understanding but you choose to rebel it rather than learn it.

The atmosphere above the rocket is the pressure to push through. It's the resistance to the energy applied below. It's always there, just every decreasing in pressure.

Lastly, your water analogy has to do with buoyancy in a tub, not a rocket in the atmosphere. So it it is incorrect, illogical, and wildly irrelevant.

It's all buoyancy if you want to argue it that way.

Buoyancy in very simple words is the below mass resistance to the above mass pushed against it.

Now that is against anything, including atmosphere.
The only difference is in what is applied directly to whatever below is below in terms of what is pushed aside by pushing INTO, directly.


 

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 03:00:25 PM

I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.

Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?

The atmosphere is stacked at every level.
Every millimetre all the way up.

The more energy you push into it the more you compress it to create a crush back to equal that thrust.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does, the rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 03:00:25 PM

I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.

Then why do rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level?

They don't. It's a fallacy that you adhere to.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 07, 2020, 07:53:33 AM

Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.

if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.

Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.

The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.

The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).

the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.

By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.

Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.

That force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.

Because you will not accept it can. You refuse to even dare to understand it.

Quit with the insults. We don't accept it because it is pure nonsense and you just repeatedly assert the same refuted nonsense and insult us for not accepting it.

Again, if what you were saying was true, the exhaust would not go significantly below the rocket. It would remain trapped with the rocket and/or be blown in front of the rocket.

If what you are saying was true, motion would be basically impossible because as you try to move you would compress the atmosphere and it would push you back.

This is why we don't accept it. Because it does not match reality and makes no sense at all, and because you repeatedly ignore these massive problems.

Perhaps you should start trying to understand things from reality's side?

The atmosphere above the rocket is the pressure to push through. It's the resistance to the energy applied below. It's always there, just every decreasing in pressure.

Which would then prevent the rocket going upwards.
Why doesn't the rocket flying into that air above it cause the air above it to be super compressed and then push the rocket back down?

Buoyancy in very simple words is the below mass resistance to the above mass pushed against it.

No, buoyancy, in very simple terms, is any fluid applying an upwards force on any object inside it.
If it was just buoyancy causing a rocket to go up, they wouldn't need any fuel. It would be like a helium balloon.

From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does

HOW?
Draw a diagram, clearly showing the arrow of force acting on the rocket to push it up.

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

That's your problem, we have put thought into it and found the truth, and it isn't your nonsense.
Thinking results in people finding the truth, not your nonsense.

Why not just say what you really think? Why not just honestly tell not to bother even trying to think at all and to instead just blindly accept your nonsense unquestioningly?

Again, you have still failed to address the simple issue which demands that rockets must work in a vacuum.
Like I said before, until you do, you have nothing.

What happens to the gas in the tube in the vacuum? How does it leave without pushing the tube and allowing rockets to work in a vacuum?
Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

Or just keep refusing to think and keep having your lies exposed.

Quote from: frenat on January 07, 2020, 04:18:31 PM

By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.

Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?

It's a different "kettle of fish"!
An "air to air missile" is not thrown but is propelled by a rocket engine that generates more thrust in the lower pressure air at higher altitudes.

Quote from: Macarios on January 06, 2020, 01:16:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 10:18:54 PM

Show me the chamber.

                     



EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)

If it did that it would cancel everything out.
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called atmospheric resistance.

That diagram is a big con.
It may look ok to those who don't care to challenge it but it's clearly utter nonsense in the way it's put out when you omit external resistance to what that nozzle puts out.

Rocket pushes gas in one direction, gas pushes rocket back in opposite direction would "cancel everything out"?

Your attempts to fit your "atmospheric resistance" into the whole picture are obviously flawed.
Expelled gas is not rigid enough to serve as a paddle.

Now when we cleared that out, tell us what are you trying to claim:

1. Gas that rocket expells has no mass?
2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?
3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?

Two non-anchored things with mass
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.

All that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 02:21:47 AM

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.

You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.
Tell me what accelerates it.
Explain simply what accelerates the gas from the rocket.

No silly equations, just simple explanations from your very own head.
Tell me how it works on your space rocket.

That force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.

I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
What is needed is to prove what that force actually is and this is the real crux of the issue.

Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.

It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.

Again, if what you were saying was true, the exhaust would not go significantly below the rocket. It would remain trapped with the rocket and/or be blown in front of the rocket.

All this time and you still don't grasp ,it. Surely you must be playing games.
The exhaust is the real spent fuel.
The atmosphere saw to that by compressing back onto the actual BURN which the rocket sits upon and is moved at each millisecond of BURN, leaving behind the real exhaust...the cloud. Ther atmosphere that has no effect on the rocket, except to be a channel left behind the force, known as spent gases/fuel/energy.

It's a different "kettle of fish"!
An "air to air missile" is not thrown but is propelled by a rocket engine that generates more thrust in the lower pressure air at higher altitudes.

Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
However the thrust does not propel it any faster, it would be much less energy for power...unless the air to air missile was fired from above to below.

So basically, if your rocket has maximum thrust at lift off it will never attain any more energy for acceleration, because every vertical advancement means  less atmosphere than before, meaning the rocket produces higher thrust for no extra return.
The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own mass against the ever decreasing atmosphere due to fuel mass depletion and ever lessening resistance to the expelled burning fuel, meaning higher thrust, as I said.


Pretty simple when you understand the basics without being coaxed into nonsense territory of arse kicking rockets supposedly not needing atmosphere.
It's a great con but  a con, nonetheless.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 06, 2020, 12:30:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 10:06:20 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 05, 2020, 10:00:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 09:35:54 PM

If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.

Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.

In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,

• the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
  
  
• the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
  
  
• and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.

The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.

What's so hard about that?

There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.

No, I'm telling the the "whole truth" as far as I know it for the part of the thrust produced by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.
There is an extra component when the rocket is in low the pressure environment of space.

That extra thrust is produced when the pressure of the burnt propellant at the exit exceeds the outside pressure.

If you need to include this extra thrust it is (exit area) x (exit pressure - outside pressure). In the vacuum of space that outside pressure is, of course zero!

But I omitted this because of your aversion to equations.

Quote from: sceptimatic

You neglect one very important factor. Can you guess what it is?

No, I don't believe that I did, but do tell!

Let me try and help you out.

Picture a massive water tank.
Put a nozzle underneath that water tank and open it up.

Tell me where the forces are acting in that flow of water in terms up pushing the water tank up.
You can clearly see the water being expelled from the tank to the ground but where is the opposite push, vertically up into the tank?

If there is none then how in  the hell do you expect your rocket to produce the same opposing force?

You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2020, 10:24:53 PM

Quote from: Macarios on January 06, 2020, 01:16:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2020, 10:18:54 PM

Show me the chamber.

                     



EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)

If it did that it would cancel everything out.
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called atmospheric resistance.

That diagram is a big con.
It may look ok to those who don't care to challenge it but it's clearly utter nonsense in the way it's put out when you omit external resistance to what that nozzle puts out.

Rocket pushes gas in one direction, gas pushes rocket back in opposite direction would "cancel everything out"?

Your attempts to fit your "atmospheric resistance" into the whole picture are obviously flawed.
Expelled gas is not rigid enough to serve as a paddle.

Now when we cleared that out, tell us what are you trying to claim:

1. Gas that rocket expells has no mass?

Everything has mass, so obviously it has mass.

2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?

The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.

3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?

The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.

Two non-anchored things with mass
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.

As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.

All that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.

You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.

I haven't failed to realise anything.
Your water rocket does not work in how you think it does.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 06, 2020, 01:35:59 AM

https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg

see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.

It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.

No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 08, 2020, 02:53:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 02:21:47 AM

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.

You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.
Tell me what accelerates it.
Explain simply what accelerates the gas from the rocket.

Please pay attention! I have explained that numerous times.

When the fuel and oxidiser (ie the propellant) are burnt in the combustion chamber they generate gas at a very high pressure but still comparatively low velocity.

That burnt propellant leaves the combustion chambers through the narrower throat and enters the bell of the nozzle still at a very high pressure.

But the exit pressure at the outlet of the bell is at a low pressure as little above the outside pressure as possible.
This pressure differential between the high pressure at the inlet end of the bell and the low pressure at the exit it the cause of the gases acceleration.

Now look at this from Macarios:

The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)

The upwards components of the pressure in the bell causes the upwards force on the bell and the thrust on the rocket.

Quote from: rabinoz

That force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.

I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
What is needed is to prove what that force actually is and this is the real crux of the issue.
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.

Which is rubbish because one person did not develop the modern rocket engine alone though a lot of practical development was done by Robert Goddard.

Your trouble is that you try to drag all this out of your head with no real knowledge of physics or the properties and behaviour of gases.

You cannot do it no matter how smart you are.
It is absolutely essential the have the background knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge.
But you have proven over and over again that you do not have this essential knowledge.

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.

It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.

No, "It doesn't fit your narrative because" you claim that "they don't work in the space " we accept is there.

And you are quite wrong because real rockets work extremely well in real space!

SpaceX launches Starlink 2, third batch of 60 Starlink satellites (1/6/2020)

And note that at 3:27 into the video the Falcon 9 is travelling at 6366 km/hr at 50 km altitude and it still accelerating though the main engines will shortly cut-off fro stage separation.
At 50 km altitude, the air pressure is only about 0.04 psi compared to 14.7 at sea-level.
And  at 4:26 into the video the Falcon 9 2nd stage is travelling at 8456 km/hr at 100 km altitude and it still accelerating.
Here the air pressure is only about 0.000004 psi and so close to a vacuum that it would make no difference to a rocket.

I do have to ask why SpaceX, NASA, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS etc would waste the billions of dollars if their rockets did not would?
The paying customers of SpaceX and Arianespace are not going to throw money at SpaceX and Arianespace for dumping rockets and satellites inti the ocean of whatever you claim happens to them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2020, 10:27:33 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 06, 2020, 01:35:59 AM

https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg

see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.

It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.

No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.

It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
And neither is your rocket.

The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.

Quote from: frenat on January 07, 2020, 04:18:31 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 07, 2020, 07:53:33 AM

Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.

if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.

Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.

The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.

The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).

the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.

By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.

Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?

Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.

When the fuel and oxidiser (ie the propellant) are burnt in the combustion chamber they generate gas at a very high pressure but still comparatively low velocity.

The combustion chamber being where we are told it is in these rockets makes zero sense, especially with the diagram of pumps to aid the supposed fuel transfer.
Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pump and to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.
No argument needed. It simply would.

The combustion chamber is a fiction.
In fact, rocket engines are a fiction for a vertical wingless rocket.

That burnt propellant leaves the combustion chambers through the narrower throat and enters the bell of the nozzle still at a very high pressure.

Nothing is leaving anywhere through a narrower throat under a burn to transfer that burn into rocket power.

But the exit pressure at the outlet of the bell is at a low pressure as little above the outside pressure as possible.
This pressure differential between the high pressure at the inlet end of the bell and the low pressure at the exit it the cause of the gases acceleration.

Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.

You have your propellent/fuel.
You release the fuel under pressure which is higher than external atmosphere but not high enough to do much in terms of lift for a rocket of decent mass.

However, as the fuel reaches the neck of the nozzle it's ignited and the burn causes massive expansion of that fuel and gas into the wider nozzle against the lower atmosphere, which is immediately expanded into by the direct thrust of those fuel and gases/burn.
This super compresses that atmosphere by pushing it out of the way and compressing it away from the burn but the atmosphere has to go somewhere once compressed to the max the fuel burn can do and it does. It decompresses to create a crash back and this happens every nano second as long as the thrusting burn is doing its job cosistently.

The rocket merely sits atop this.

There's no internal combustion chambers and no silly engines. They are counter productive to the vertical operation of the rocket.
You're being duped.

Now look at this from Macarios:

Quote from: Macarios on January 06, 2020, 01:16:19 AM

The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)

The upwards components of the pressure in the bell causes the upwards force on the bell and the thrust on the rocket.

As above.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: rabinoz

That force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.

I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
What is needed is to prove what that force actually is and this is the real crux of the issue.
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.

Which is rubbish because one person did not develop the modern rocket engine alone though a lot of practical development was done by Robert Goddard.

I'm not bothered who developed the rocket engine. If it's a vertical rocket then the engines are fictional. If it has wings the engines are genuine and generally work as told.

Your trouble is that you try to drag all this out of your head with no real knowledge of physics or the properties and behaviour of gases.

By all means have a go and say these things. You do so based on having zero knowledge of the reality of what you are arguing, so be my guest when you place yourself on that higher pedestal in your own mind. It means nothing.

You cannot do it no matter how smart you are.
It is absolutely essential the have the background knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge.
But you have proven over and over again that you do not have this essential knowledge.

It's only essential to have a background knowledge of something that is entirely physically real.
Space rockets are fictional and the knowledge you possess gives you zero authority on the reality but it does give you verbal/written ability to recall what you placed into memory.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: sceptimatic

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.

It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.

No, "It doesn't fit your narrative because" you claim that "they don't work in the space " we accept is there.

And you are quite wrong because real rockets work extremely well in real space!

SpaceX launches Starlink 2, third batch of 60 Starlink satellites (1/6/2020)

And note that at 3:27 into the video the Falcon 9 is travelling at 6366 km/hr at 50 km altitude and it still accelerating though the main engines will shortly cut-off fro stage separation.
At 50 km altitude, the air pressure is only about 0.04 psi compared to 14.7 at sea-level.
And  at 4:26 into the video the Falcon 9 2nd stage is travelling at 8456 km/hr at 100 km altitude and it still accelerating.
Here the air pressure is only about 0.000004 psi and so close to a vacuum that it would make no difference to a rocket.

It would make no difference to the rocket because the rocket is not working in near zero atmosphere. It's fiction. It cannot work, no matter how you dress it up.

You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.

I do have to ask why SpaceX, NASA, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS etc would waste the billions of dollars if their rockets did not would?

Maybe they aren't wasting billions.

The paying customers of SpaceX and Arianespace are not going to throw money at SpaceX and Arianespace for dumping rockets and satellites inti the ocean of whatever you claim happens to them.

What paying customers?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 02:24:37 AM

Quote from: frenat on January 07, 2020, 04:18:31 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 07, 2020, 07:53:33 AM

Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.

if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.

Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.

The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.

The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).

the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.

By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.

Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?

Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.

Correct, they maintain a consistent speed due to losing mass and gaining more thrust against ever lessenging atmospheric resistance.
This is an absolute requirement for the rocket to keep a stable speed but it does not last for long before the fuel is spent enough to lose its ability to carry on that thrust build and so your rocket becomes a dead stick on the vertical or an arcing ocean missile.

Quote from: Stash on January 07, 2020, 03:28:38 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 03:00:25 PM

I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.

Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?

The atmosphere is stacked at every level.
Every millimetre all the way up.

The more energy you push into it the more you compress it to create a crush back to equal that thrust.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does, the rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

This directly contradicts your reply before it:

" ever decreasing atmospheric pressure."

Quote from: frenat on January 08, 2020, 05:59:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 02:24:37 AM

Quote from: frenat on January 07, 2020, 04:18:31 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 07, 2020, 01:50:45 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 07, 2020, 07:53:33 AM

Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.

if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.

Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.

The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.

The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).

the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.

By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.

Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?

Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.

Correct, they maintain a consistent speed due to losing mass and gaining more thrust against ever lessenging atmospheric resistance.
This is an absolute requirement for the rocket to keep a stable speed but it does not last for long before the fuel is spent enough to lose its ability to carry on that thrust build and so your rocket becomes a dead stick on the vertical or an arcing ocean missile.

No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 08, 2020, 04:11:53 AM

You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.

I haven't failed to realise anything.
Your water rocket does not work in how you think it does.

Youve failed to descriptively draw and verbally communicate how it works.
But do keep on claiming youre right.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 08, 2020, 04:58:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2020, 10:27:33 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 06, 2020, 01:35:59 AM

https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg

see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.

It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.

No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.

It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?
And neither is your rocket.

The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.

Dafuq?
See the frist image for example.
See the black part labeled "skirt"?
See the arrows pushing up on the bottom of the hovercraft?

Thats what you need to show.

Scepti quote:

The rocket merely sits atop this.





Then your green line gasfigght will be pushing the rocket up.
So there should be arrows from this, pushing on the rocket/ balloon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 02:21:47 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 07, 2020, 03:28:38 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 07, 2020, 03:00:25 PM

I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.

Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?

The atmosphere is stacked at every level.
Every millimetre all the way up.

The more energy you push into it the more you compress it to create a crush back to equal that thrust.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does, the rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.

There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.

Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.

This directly contradicts your reply before it:

" ever decreasing atmospheric pressure."

No it doesn't. You trying to twist it, changes nothing.
Try and refrain from doing this because it doesn't help you.

No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.

The air to air missile will only ever have a horizontal flight path if it has wings.
Otherwise it will simply, slowly descend.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2020, 04:23:12 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 08, 2020, 04:11:53 AM

You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.

I haven't failed to realise anything.
Your water rocket does not work in how you think it does.

Youve failed to descriptively draw and verbally communicate how it works.
But do keep on claiming youre right.

I've done plenty and will do more as time goes on....but it won't be for your benefit, obviously.