It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Anyhow; why can none of you give me the exhaust velocity, in mph, of the main engines of the space shuttle?

I will tell you why.

Because no one like you enough to want to spoon feed you every bit of trivia that you demand.  But since you don't want to let it go, the space shuttle main engines have an exhaust velocity of about 4500 meters/second or about 10,000 mile per hour.  Now can we please move on?

Bijane: LOL!!!

Comedy gold as usual.

Plus the numbers I require (which I already knew but just wanted you to state first; lol! again).

& markjo: Oh, yes - let's do move on, Perry Mason!

Anyhow; thus numerically armed, let us contemplate Newton's 3rd Law once more.

'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.

But what about the 'equal & opposite' part?

For, if rockets work by expelling mass from the back & creating an action & reaction, then (whichever model is correct) the maximum velocity of the mass propelled out the back is EQUAL to the maximum velocity the rocket can be propelled in the OPPOSITE direction.

'equal & opposite', remember?

& that's assuming 100% efficiency; unlikely in reality due to gravity, aerodynamic drag etc.

So; if the maximum exhaust velocity of the shuttle's engines is 10,000+ mph, how can it possibly attain the necessary orbital velocity of 17,500+ mph?

Magic?

Because no engine is 175% efficient.

& it's crazy to claim that it is.

Note: ACCELERATION only relates to MAXIMUM VELOCITY; a rocket can accelerate UP TO its maximum velocity & thereafter can accelerate no more.

Of course, a child can see that I am correct; but watch the space-cultists howl now!

They got NOTHING - but they will not give up...

& that is LOL!!!

'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.

Nope, you've already agreed a sufficient condition that the fuel and rocket are not the same thing, so...

Your escape velocity question is very easy to answer. I will be happy to do so, if you answer my yes or no question.

'Every action creates an equal & opposite reaction'. Now; we've dealt with the 'action-reaction' part already, & proved the NASA-huggers wrong.

But what about the 'equal & opposite' part?

How many times do I have to tell you this:

EJECTING GAS IS THE ACTION AND THE ROCKET MOVING FORWARD IS THE REACTION!!!

You cannot cherry pick physics like that and make it only apply when it's convenient for you.

For, if rockets work by expelling mass from the back & creating an action & reaction, then (whichever model is correct) the maximum velocity of the mass propelled out the back is EQUAL to the maximum velocity the rocket can be propelled in the OPPOSITE direction.

'equal & opposite', remember?

& that's assuming 100% efficiency; unlikely in reality due to gravity, aerodynamic drag etc.

It's also assuming that the rocket is exactly 50% fuel, which is generally not the case.  The 50% you assumed was not fuel could easily be a second stage, which is how real rockets work.

WHOOOSH!!!

Straight over your heads...

LAike a ROKKIT IN OWTTER-SPAYZSE!!!!!

lol!

Read it carefully: 'Every action creates an EQUAL & OPPOSITE reaction'.

So 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction...

NOT 17,500mph; to claim that it does is clearly a massive violation of Newton's 3rd.

Come on! A child can see it is true; yet you can not...

Now THAT'S the Power of BRAINWASHING, folks; available at any NASA outlet near you!

Just LOL!!!

I promise you, it's a very simple answer.

This is how it works, though. Tit for tat. I've asked you a ice, simple, yes or no question. Give me an answer, and I'll be happy to answer yours.

Clearly rockets work at ground level, so there's some specific thickness of air at some altitude you believe it will stop working at. Let's have the two rockets at that altitude: the highest altitude you believe they can reach. Now, yes or no.
If one rocket has all the fuel still inside it, and one has the fuel exhaust leaving it at high speed, are the forces at play in each exactly the same?

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?

What is WRONG with you?

P.s. BJ: I don't care about your answers or about anything else you have to say.

You'll find out if you answer my question. Come on Papa, you managed an answer earlier today. What's one more?

P.s. BJ: I don't care about your answers or about anything else you have to say.

Nice edit. So, why ask a question if you don't want the answer to it? After all, this should be a very simple way to find it.

Edit: Well, anyway, I'm off to read. Here's hoping you'll be able to answer come tomorrow.

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?

What is WRONG with you?

It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed.  It takes more force to accelerate a heavy object then a light object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push.  If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

No, it doesn't.  Newton's 3rd law deals with equal and opposite forces, not equal and opposite speeds.

Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?

We don't, but in this case, Newton's 2nd law (F=MA) is more relevant. 

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 24, 2015, 03:35:19 PM

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?

What is WRONG with you?

It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed.  It takes more force to accelerate a small object then a big object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push.  If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.

I think you got that backwards mike. 

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on June 24, 2015, 03:35:19 PM

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

Why do you all hate Newton's 3rd so much?

What is WRONG with you?

It's the force that's equal and opposite, not the speed.  It takes more force to accelerate a small object then a big object, you can test this by pushing a real car in neutral, pushing a toy car, and see which one is easier to push.  If a rocket is 90% fuel then it will go much faster then it's exaust velocity.

I think you got that backwards mike.

Yeah, you are right.  I did.

I meant that bigger objects take more force to accelerate.

Sorry for any confusion that might have caused.  Thanks for pointing that out BJ.

Again: 10,000mph in one direction EQUALS 10,000mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

Thanks for confirming that you fail to understand relative motion as well as conservation of momentum.   I can understand better why you don't have a clue about rockets.

Once more into the breech ...

Multiply the velocity of the exhaust by the mass of the exhaust,  and divide by the mass of the rocket,   that's the deltaV the rocket achieves at the completion of the burn.  Or you could use the proper tsiolkovsky rocket equation if you want a partial burn.

As I predicted, lots of spam from the space-believers.

Yet the fact remains that hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot EQUAL a velocity EXCEEDING 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

& that's assuming it strikes an outside MASS on the way, in order to create an ACTION-REACTION PAIRING.

Which, in NASA's model, it doesn't.

Thus, yours & NASA's model of rocketry violates Newton's 3rd Law every which way from Sunday.

It is voodoo-science, plain & simple.

& Papa Legba KNOWS voodoo!

You don't want it to be this easy to understand.

But it is.

So - as ever - LOL!!!

Have another yes or no question! Wonder if you'll pay attention to this one.

Does the force acting on an object depend exclusively on speed? That is, is the mass relevant?
If you throw a pea at 40mph, will it impart the same force as a car at 40mph and make what it hits move at the same rate?

I know what you're trying to do, BJ.

NASA claims that as a rocket loses mass it will be able to accelerate further & further, to the point that it exceeds its exhaust velocity &, once in the gravity/friction-less environs of 'space', can continue accelerating to infinity...

And beyond!

Of course, this is more voodoo science; in fact, as a rocket loses mass it will merely be able to accelerate CLOSER to its maximum velocity.

Which, according to Newton 3, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust.

Simple stuff...

But keep spamming otherwise, crooked lawyers & thought-policemen; cos every time you do, neutral readers will become yet more disgusted by your illogical & dishonest antics.

& my case will be strengthened further.

Which is, naturally, LOL!!!

Which, according to Newton 3, is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust.

Which is what my question will determine. Are you aswering yes or no?

I am ignoring your question BJ, just as I ignored your stupid Australia false analogy earlier in the thread.

You clearly have no interest in truth or science or logic & only post your laughable spam in order to distract from my own far more informative offerings.

You disgust me, basically, so please stop trying to claim you have anything to offer other than disruption, derailing & general white noise.

Also, learn Newton 3.

& get a life.

You clearly have no interest in truth or science or logic & only post your laughable spam in order to distract from my own far more informative offerings.

So, you can't answer a rather relevant yes or no question?
Well, any time you can, let me know.

As I predicted, lots of spam from the space-believers.

Yet the fact remains that hurling a mass at 10,000 mph in one direction cannot EQUAL a velocity EXCEEDING 10,000 mph in the OPPOSITE direction.

& that's assuming it strikes an outside MASS on the way, in order to create an ACTION-REACTION PAIRING.

Which, in NASA's model, it doesn't.

Thus, yours & NASA's model of rocketry violates Newton's 3rd Law every which way from Sunday.

It is voodoo-science, plain & simple.

Did you know that a sailboat can travel faster than the wind that's pushing it?    More voodoo-science.
http://www.boatsafe.com/kids/bramp1099.htm

LOL!!!

What a surprise; markjo following up on bijane's lead...

With sail-boats yet again - LOL!!!

Instead of just posting links & acting smug, please explain in your own words EXACTLY how a sail-boat works, & how it is relevant to how a rocket works (does a rocket have a sail, markjo? Or a yacht supposedly operate in a vacuum?), before we get involved with yet another lamentably FALSE ANALOGY.

A rocket is like a yacht now - just LOL!!!

You lot really do have NOTHING, do you?

But you simply will not give up...



LMAO!!!

If you throw a pea at 40mph, will it impart the same force as a car at 40mph and make what it hits move at the same rate?

Nice simple question.
Is mass relevant?

Will whatever the pea or car hit move at over 40 mph in the opposite direction?

Duh!

Will whatever the pea or car hit move at over 40 mph in the opposite direction?

That's not the question.
Is mass relevant? Yes or no.

After all, this analogy isn't perfect. It's just meant as a way to work out the variables that determine the force. (If you want it to be perfect, we can deal with something that launches the car/pea, and how much force that requires, but that's trickier to visualize).

You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.

NEVER.

Only the distance it travels & the rate at which it accelerates will.

Duh!

LEARN NEWTON 3 & BE DONE WITH THIS CHARADE FFS!!!














lol!

A rocket is like a yacht now - just LOL!!!

Where did I say that?  I just gave you an example of something that can travel faster than what's pushing it.  If you're to lazy to read the link, then why should I spoon feed you?

You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.

NEVER.

Incorrect.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

Yeah; a youtube.

Typical cultist 'evidence'.

lol!

Try telling us, in your own words for a change, what you want to say.

Wouldn't want to look like a bluffing shyster, would you?

You can smash Object A into Object B as long as you like, with as many different masses as you like, but the velocity of Object B will NEVER exceed the velocity at which it is smashed into by Object A.

A comparison, now. Simple examination.

Object A hits object B. They both have the same mass. If A stops upon contact, then all of its energy goes to B. Does B go at the same speed as A, or does energy get lost for no reason? It seems clear the former is the case.
Now, object A has far more mass than object B. The same situation occurs. Does B go at the exact same speed, despite being struck by a larger mass?

Or, if you want a simpler question: Newton's laws are about forces. Are you saying speed alone dictates a force, with no respect to mass?

Yes or no questions again. I wonder if you'll answer these.