If you don't keep a full thrust to keep a near vertical then your rocket will literally lose lift and go unstable and fall out of the sky.
Pure BS. If you wish to convince anyone of such garbage you will need to do vastly more than just baselessly assert it.
Again, they don't go purely vertical, and they have more than enough thrust to provide lift to balance their weight.
Stop just baselessly asserting garbage. If you want anyone to take you seriously you need to back up your claims.
This gimbal stuff is also ridiculous
And can you provide anything more than you dismissing it as ridiculous?
Again, you not liking something doesn't mean it is fake.
They're in the same band of duping.
The gullible public are being fed fantasy.
Sure, they are in the same band of "duping".
You don't like, them so you pretend they are ridiculous and reject them with absolutely no rational justification for your rejection.
You are the gullible one hear.
What I can do is watch rockets launch at "full thrust" and basically springboard into the air and hold that thrust until the fuel is spent. It then falls back to the ground, whether its a model rocket of a larger missile/rocket.
Then you haven't watched closely. Yes, they hold the thrust, but they continue to accelerate. After the fuel is spent, it continues going up, slowly accelerating, before reaching a vertical velocity of 0 and then falling back down.
Again, there are plenty of rocket videos you can watch (and even some opportunities to watch them live) where they don't do that.
Again, you not understanding scale doesn't mean reality is wrong.
The major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
Again, just like with model planes and cars a major issue with them all is their very rapid depletion of their fuel.
That doesn't mean that bigger ones will have the same problem.
1. The springboard launch, meaning a rapid launch at full thrust.
2. The short time the full thrust lasts. Generally less than a minute with most, if not all.
Again, you not understanding reality doesn't mean reality is wrong.
If you wish to assert such BS you need to back it up.
1. A slow launch as if the rocket goes into slow motion as it leaves the launch pad. This alone should make people sit up and take notice of this nonsense.
That simply means their thrust to weight ratio is not massive. It doesn't make them fake.
2. The enormous underthrust of these so called rockets would literally blow them to smithereens
Why?
Stop just asserting BS.
Either back up your insanity or don't say it at all.
Those so called massive ICBM's in those silo's could not vent the stuff they would spew out.
Just what venting do you think it needs?
All I have is assumptions.
Then stop asserting your baseless, incorrect assumptions as facts.
The thing is (if you are honest about it) you are merely following
No, stop lying.
Not everyone is as ignorant as you.
Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean everyone is just following a narrative.
You've done nothing to dampen down my mindset on this.
And no one ever will, because you don't give a damn about reality.
But that wont stop people calling you out on your BS.
Forget the sketchy first video. I deem them as nonsense because they look it.
Why not just be honest, you don't want any evidence.
You just want to pretend they are fake.
It's fine blowing a silly projectile from a tube in a tank but we need to look at what reality would be for a supposed ICBM from a sub deep underwater.
And before you would do that, you need to make sure you are doing it correctly.
First of all you need to go and look at a bullet fired from a high powered gun and see what happens to the bullet underwater.
Why?
An ICBM isn't a bullet.
See also how far bullets travel underwater before the crushing water friction grips/crushes them to a stop.
And then you need to know how that will change with scale.
Bullets are tiny. They have a very large surface area relative to their size, and they travel very quickly.
All that means that they will have a lot of friction slowing them down.
Ok so let's deal with supposed compressed air pushing a so called big ICBM, fully fuelled and warhead heavy out of a tube, vertically from deep to not only negate the crushing water but also keep going until it pushes clear of that water many feet above, to then ignite.
Okay, lets actually deal with it.
Show the math which is used to determine the pressure involved.
Until you do, any argument based upon the pressure is childish garbage.
need no refuelling for 25 years and what not.
It's amazing how little refuelling you need when you have a stable fuel that you aren't using.
I love reading about it all but I tend to treat it all as I see it.
Meanwhile, others will treat reality as reality, even if you don't want to.
What I'm saying is, your general mindset is to follow mass thought even though you understand that mass following of something does not make it a fact.
Or to put it more honestly:
To accept the mountains of evidence presented for something rather than rejecting it all due to paranoid delusions.
Some will even go a step further and actually understand the mechanics and thus realise it is 100% possible.
Meanwhile other people will be completely insane and reject it simply because they don't like it, without even thinking about it honestly and rationally.
They will then make completely insane claims, baselessly assert them as fact and pretend their delusions are justified.
A sceptic
You aren't a sceptic. You are happy to believe baseless garbage. So who cares?
Also, sceptics don't repeatedly demand proof. They ask for evidence.
The revered top scientist can become a nut job in short order for going against the grain.
If they do so without evidence.
If they do so with evidence they typically get a nobel prize.
No dig. I'm just saying you use a model rocket to cater for something you've never witnessed, as if the large rockets we are told about work from the basis of that model rocket.
Again, you not understanding how reality works doesn't mean everyone is as ignorant as you or that reality doesn't work.
I'm merely saying that a rocket burns its fuel in extreme short order by having to push vertical at full thrust to gain the required altitude.
And what we are saying is that is baseless garbage which no sane person would ever accept.
We have also shown just how flawed your pathetic analogy is.
It's not a fact that this applies to ICBM's and space rockets. I don't claim that as a fact.
Yes you do. You claim that real rockets burn their fuel in seconds and that if it doesn't, it is fake.
Stop lying.
Fuel to mass ratio is the real key.
No it is not. That is only one part.
The total mass is also important, as is the burn rate.
Again, if you understood the physics you would know that.
You can even do simple experiments to test it for yourself.
But you don't, because you don't care about the truth. All you care about is rejecting reality to pretend you are better than everyone else.
If one (little) expends it's fuel in short order with it's fuel to mass ration, then the larger one is equally going to expend it's fuel in short order
So big cars (i.e. ones people drive around in) will expend all their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes. Large planes (i.e. jets people fly in) will expend their fuel in no more than 10 to 20 minutes, rendering them both at a limited range and nothing like the hours people often claim they are capable of,
Again, your argument is pure BS based upon wilful ignorance.
You need more than repeating the same baseless assertion.
Then explain it to me as if I'm that child.
That would require you to stop asserting so much baseless BS, or stop rejecting people saying that is wrong.
A key first step would be realising that the same amount (or same ratio) of fuel could burn at a different rate.
If you have 1 kg of fuel, that could be gone in 1 second, or 1 hour (as examples). Burning it at these different rates would have vastly different effects.
But you don't seem to care and instead repeatedly assert they burn through their fuel at the same time.
me being the sceptical and inquisitive and innovative person that I am.
You are neither sceptical nor inquisitive.
You have shown you do not give a damn about reality, being quite happy to reject things backed up by mountains of evidence while accepting baseless garbage backed up by nothing and/or refuted by plenty of evidence.
I just look at the simplicity of stuff and to me a gimballed rocket nozzle/engine would be silly.
Prove me wrong.
No. You thinking something is silly doesn't magically mean it can't be real. Even "silly" things can't be real.
Most people understand how gimbals work.
So if you want to challenge that you will need vastly more than "it's silly"
A heavy gimple above something would be a much better stability tool.
Prove it.