Space Flight

  • 870 Replies
  • 87285 Views
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5129
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #810 on: July 16, 2013, 10:30:52 AM »
Well, if you understood air pressure, you would not be arguing about space rockets, you would realise they can not get into space, yet you believe they can, so obviously you cannot understand air pressure and expansion, can you, seriously.

Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely. But unfortunately,

1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical

So I guess you don't understand air pressure either.
supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.
Rockets don't need atmosphere to operate and it's as simple as that. Please provide your evidence to the contrary since you have made the claim.
I've provided plenty, you just need to bother yourself to read up on it. It's all in this topic.
You've given unproven theories.  Again, please provide your proof that a rocket requires atmosphere to function and that pressure vessels require external pressure to survive.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #811 on: July 16, 2013, 10:39:14 AM »
supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.

Then let me just make a few modifications to my previous post:

Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely and that you need an atmosphere for propulsion. But unfortunately,

1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical
4) It ignores the conservation of momentum

So I guess you don't understand air pressure and propulsion either.
What do you mean, the conservation of momentum? Just clarify what you mean when applying this to a rocket.
The gases are accelerated out the rear of the rocket, and the conservation of momentum states...?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5129
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #812 on: July 16, 2013, 10:44:41 AM »
Well, if you understood air pressure, you would not be arguing about space rockets, you would realise they can not get into space, yet you believe they can, so obviously you cannot understand air pressure and expansion, can you, seriously.

Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely. But unfortunately,

1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical

So I guess you don't understand air pressure either.
supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.
Rockets don't need atmosphere to operate and it's as simple as that. Please provide your evidence to the contrary since you have made the claim.
I've provided plenty, you just need to bother yourself to read up on it. It's all in this topic.
You've given unproven theories.  Again, please provide your proof that a rocket requires atmosphere to function and that pressure vessels require external pressure to survive.
How would you like me to directly prove that, do you have anything in mind?
So you haven't even proved it to yourself outside of a flight experiment?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #813 on: July 16, 2013, 10:48:10 AM »
It depends on the strength of the tank, it's design and how thick it is and what it is made of.
[/quote]

It's a propane tank rated to above 60 psi.

I'll ask again:

True or false: Air inside a container will expand until met with an equal and opposite pressure.
equal force, yes.

Let us now fill a metal tank with air until the pressure inside is 28 psi (normal atmosphere around us).

True or false: The tanks ruptures.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #814 on: July 16, 2013, 10:49:23 AM »
True or false: Air inside a container will expand until met with an equal and opposite pressure.
equal force, yes.

Let us now fill a metal tank with air until the pressure inside is 28 psi (normal atmosphere around us).

True or false: The tanks ruptures.
Alex, maybe you've missed something that came up earlier in this thread - 28psi in a container with 14psi on the outside won't break (given a strong enough container), 15psi vs 1 is ok, 15 vs 0.1 is still ok, even 15 vs 1*10^-12 is still ok - but if you have any pressure at all vs 0psi, irresistible destruction ensues; it's the perfect vacuum (found only outside the dome of sky) that nothing absolutely can not endure.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #815 on: July 16, 2013, 10:56:47 AM »
But let us try a different approach, shall we? Our 28 psi air tank on Earth. What is stopping the air from expanding outward to equalize pressure with the surrounding air and rupturing the tank?
The tank itself due to it's strength.

So the tank itself produces a 14 psi pressure inward?
Did I actually say that?
Did I imply that?
Have I mentioned that?

You need to know how air pressure works before I can explain it to you. Many think they know but none, so far appear to know it fully.

"Good morning class, this is Engineering Physics 101. If you're in the wrong class, now's a good time to leave. OK, everyone's here for the right class. Now, who here fully understands physics, show of hands please? OK, 1, 2, just the 2 of you? Great, the rest can leave, I can't teach anyone who doesn't understand physics! Out you go! Now, you two understand physics, right? Great! Nothing much I can teach you then, see you next semester for EP 102. Class dismissed!"

 :-\
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #816 on: July 16, 2013, 11:12:42 AM »
True or false: Air inside a container will expand until met with an equal and opposite pressure.
equal force, yes.

Let us now fill a metal tank with air until the pressure inside is 28 psi (normal atmosphere around us).

True or false: The tanks ruptures.
Alex, maybe you've missed something that came up earlier in this thread - 28psi in a container with 14psi on the outside won't break (given a strong enough container), 15psi vs 1 is ok, 15 vs 0.1 is still ok, even 15 vs 1*10^-12 is still ok - but if you have any pressure at all vs 0psi, irresistible destruction ensues; it's the perfect vacuum (found only outside the dome of sky) that nothing absolutely can not endure.
Well at least you get it.

Sceptimatic, Why are we still discussing this then? Your "vacuum" is not attainable on Earth, and can't be entered through the Ice dome in your model. All the celestial objects are inside the atmosphere in your view. Therefore space travel would seem to be permitted in your view, or at least wouldn't be impossible due to the effects of a vacuum since we'd never encounter that vacuum, at least when trying to reach the Moon, Sun, etc.

On the other hand, in the "indoctrinated" view espoused by astronomers, astrophysicists, and most people in general, the vacuum you are talking about doesn't exist. There's no all-consuming void that causes any vessel to rupture (while at the same time being impossible to move in). The properties of "your" vacuum vs "our" vacuum are different, so we're talking about two different things here. The vacuum in the RE model is never a complete vacuum, even between Earth and Moon, or Sun and other stars. It's just extremely low pressure. Therefore there's no hindrance to space travel there either.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #817 on: July 16, 2013, 11:32:54 AM »
Well, following your brand new brilliant theory of Moon=Earth, Armstrong actually walked on the moon.

We all walk on the moon in fact.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #818 on: July 16, 2013, 11:36:49 AM »
So Armstrong was walking on the moon inside the dome 240,000 miles away then?

I don't agree that there's a dome at all, since there's plenty of evidence to show that there isn't one. But even on your view, I don't see why it's impossible that people have been to the Moon. It would have to be for some other reason than rockets not working in a vacuum. Therefore I think the whole vacuum discussion is pointless in this thread.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #819 on: July 16, 2013, 11:41:39 AM »

Alex, maybe you've missed something that came up earlier in this thread - 28psi in a container with 14psi on the outside won't break (given a strong enough container), 15psi vs 1 is ok, 15 vs 0.1 is still ok, even 15 vs 1*10^-12 is still ok - but if you have any pressure at all vs 0psi, irresistible destruction ensues; it's the perfect vacuum (found only outside the dome of sky) that nothing absolutely can not endure.
Well at least you get it.
Yay me! I don't agree with you though =D

(seems to be the same with my grammar, hmm or was it the other way around)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 11:43:47 AM by neimoka »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #820 on: July 16, 2013, 12:10:12 PM »
True or false: Air inside a container will expand until met with an equal and opposite pressure.
equal force, yes.

Let us now fill a metal tank (rated to 60 psi) with air until the pressure inside is 28 psi (normal atmosphere around us).

True or false: The tanks ruptures.
[/quote]False.
[/quote]

True or false: The pressure difference between the inside and outside of this tank is 14 psi.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #821 on: July 16, 2013, 12:43:52 PM »
True or false: Air inside a container will expand until met with an equal and opposite pressure.
equal force, yes.

Let us now fill a metal tank (rated to 60 psi) with air until the pressure inside is 28 psi (normal atmosphere around us).

True or false: The tanks ruptures.
False.

True or false: The pressure difference between the inside and outside of this tank is 14 psi.
false.

Essay: Why is the pressure difference between the inside and outside of this tank not 14 psi? Show your work.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 04:44:58 PM by Alex Tomasovich »

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #822 on: July 16, 2013, 08:49:16 PM »
supposed space rockets getting into space, doesn't hinge on contained air.Rockets need atmosphere to push against and this alone renders them useless and you don;t need to say, "what, no , no , no , they don't need atmosphere"....they do and it's as simple as that, so that for starters is a no go, followed by expansion of air that would tear the rocket apart.

Then let me just make a few modifications to my previous post:

Space rockets not being able to get into space is hanging on by your little unsupported claim that a metal container needs a non-zero outside air pressure to contain its internal air pressure else it would expand indefinitely and that you need an atmosphere for propulsion. But unfortunately,

1) You haven't tested this claim
2) Others more intelligent than you have debunked this claim
3) It's illogical
4) It ignores the conservation of momentum

So I guess you don't understand air pressure and propulsion either.
What do you mean, the conservation of momentum? Just clarify what you mean when applying this to a rocket.
The gases are accelerated out the rear of the rocket, and the conservation of momentum states...?
You are going to have to explain a lot better than that. Tell me about this conservation of momentum for the rockets vertical lift off and how this all works.

I was actually expecting you to finish off that sentence. This isn't a physics class, and I'm not going to be your teacher. Also, considering that you're capable of concocting your own theories, I'm pretty sure you have the capability of researching this term and applying it to the problem at hand. It's not hard, the internet is chock full of explanations of the conservation of momentum (don't confuse it with the conservation of energy).
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #823 on: July 16, 2013, 09:14:16 PM »
Wait, scepti, you say rockets won't work in a vacuum.

And that any amount of air pressure, no matter how small, doesn't constitute a vacuum.

And that only in a vacuum can you not contain any air.

So ... you agree the space travel exists! At least into what we would call LEO. The ISS isn't in a vacuum--there's a very slight air pressure that produces enough drag on it for it to need to be boosted every few years or so.

Also, by your own argument, the ice-dome (or any dome) cannot exist, since outside the dome is a pure vacuum. Thus the air inside should expand into that vacuum, destroying the ice-field like a high-altitude balloon bursts on the edge of our atmosphere.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #824 on: July 16, 2013, 09:26:05 PM »
Wait, scepti, you say rockets won't work in a vacuum.

And that any amount of air pressure, no matter how small, doesn't constitute a vacuum.

And that only in a vacuum can you not contain any air.

So ... you agree the space travel exists! At least into what we would call LEO. The ISS isn't in a vacuum--there's a very slight air pressure that produces enough drag on it for it to need to be boosted every few years or so.

Yes, scepti's argument has a nice hole in it right there. It'll be interesting to see his comeback to that!

Also, by your own argument, the ice-dome (or any dome) cannot exist, since outside the dome is a pure vacuum. Thus the air inside should expand into that vacuum, destroying the ice-field like a high-altitude balloon bursts on the edge of our atmosphere.

Scepti did cook up a way for his ice-dome to be an exception to that rule, which completely contradicts everything he's ever said about pressure, atmosphere and vacuums, but never mind all that! It must work, because he knows in his mind that it's 100% right!  ::)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #825 on: July 17, 2013, 12:04:20 AM »
what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.

Do you understand conservation of momentum even at all or just can't/won't apply it to rockets?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #826 on: July 17, 2013, 12:17:11 AM »
what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.

Do you understand conservation of momentum even at all or just can't/won't apply it to rockets?
I just want  you to explain it, as you seem to go on about it all the time, so explain it as your reason for rocket propulsion and how it works in getting that rocket up and into so called space.

Yes, I do go on about it sometimes and have explained the principle on numerous occasions, yet you still don't know what it means... But since you're too lazy to look it up for yourself, and I'm too lazy to repeat myself again only to have you spit on it with contempt,

Here you go.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #827 on: July 17, 2013, 01:55:54 AM »
what conservation of momentum is when relating to a rocket.

Do you understand conservation of momentum even at all or just can't/won't apply it to rockets?
I just want  you to explain it, as you seem to go on about it all the time, so explain it as your reason for rocket propulsion and how it works in getting that rocket up and into so called space.

Yes, I do go on about it sometimes and have explained the principle on numerous occasions, yet you still don't know what it means... But since you're too lazy to look it up for yourself, and I'm too lazy to repeat myself again only to have you spit on it with contempt,

Here you go.
Simply explain it on this topic, please. Use the rockets vertical ascent and briefly explain what this conservation of momentum does and how it works with a rocket.

Did you not read the link?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #828 on: July 17, 2013, 02:37:26 AM »
How many times has conservation of momentum been explained within this thread? I lost count, but if I get a severe masochistic urge, I'll go back through all 80 pages and link to every instance where it has been explained. I expect that'll be a pretty lengthy post...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #829 on: July 17, 2013, 03:13:58 AM »
...I just like the way it gets squirmed out of to explain rockets.

It's still better than your explanation scepti. At least conservation of momentum makes sense and is reproducible in a number of different experiments! My favourite (in this thread at least, because it completely contradicts your version of things) is the person stepping off the boat.

There's also the water bottle rocket, firearms (which do not recoil the way you say they do), anything which uses a spring or elastic to propel something, balloons, gas cylinders which get their end knocked off (a rather spectacular, although very dangerous demonstration!), and of course fuel-burning rockets! Plus others that I haven't thought of no doubt.

Note: conservation of momentum and Newton's 3rd law go hand in hand, so a demonstration of one is a demonstration of both.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #830 on: July 17, 2013, 04:40:19 AM »
I think we can safely put conservation of momentum in the bin for this one, as you appear not to want to answer it.
Rockets can not go out of the breathable atmosphere and they do not work without breathable atmosphere.

Actually, I think we can put a flame to your already binned theories since you don't care about any explanations that are handed to you.


I don't need it explaining to be honest, I just like the way it gets squirmed out of to explain rockets.
All ways are tried to discount atmosphere working with rockets and they are scraping the barrel, plus reliant of scientific bull crap.

Exactly as I thought.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #831 on: July 17, 2013, 06:53:08 AM »
You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?

Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.

The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.

And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #832 on: July 17, 2013, 07:22:59 AM »
You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?

Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.

The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.

And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.

How is his post irrelevant? You only have a problem with a perfect vacuum, and no one has ever claimed that there are absolutely no gases where satellites orbit. In fact, you even made a thread a while back about satellites needing to be reboosted.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Space Flight
« Reply #833 on: July 17, 2013, 07:43:44 AM »
You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?

Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.

The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.

And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.

How is his post irrelevant? You only have a problem with a perfect vacuum, and no one has ever claimed that there are absolutely no gases where satellites orbit. In fact, you even made a thread a while back about satellites needing to be reboosted.
When I argue a point with people like you, I have to use what you accept as true to make my points, which is why I try and destroy your little magical things from how you people think.

So as I understand it, you order of thinking has been

- Accept "space is a vacuum" as truth
- Decide that rockets cannot work in a perfect vacuum
- Ignore claims that space isn't a perfect vacuum

Is that about right? Is that how people like you think?
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #834 on: July 17, 2013, 08:35:36 AM »
You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?

Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.

The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.

And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.

How is his post irrelevant? You only have a problem with a perfect vacuum, and no one has ever claimed that there are absolutely no gases where satellites orbit. In fact, you even made a thread a while back about satellites needing to be reboosted.
When I argue a point with people like you, I have to use what you accept as true to make my points, which is why I try and destroy your little magical things from how you people think.

Let's take a brief moment to remind ourselves what Sceptimatic has said to date.

I don't know how high the atmosphere, in it's full entirety, stretches but the sun is inside of it.

The sun is in our atmosphere.

Everything other than the very lightest elements (which will freeze against the vacuum)

You say the ice dome cannot exist as the air would expand into that vacuum.....what air?
There is no air to expand into it, it's already expanded gas, either helium or nitrogen or something like that, which "FREEZES" the minute it starts to hit a vacuum

Air (at least helium and nitrogen) will freeze when subjected to a vacuum.

The sun inside the ice dome is what is seen, not in space, outside of it.

The sun is inside the dome.

Okay, so recap of the recap. The dome is made of air that froze against the vacuum of not-Earth. The sun is inside the dome, in our atmosphere. The sun's accepted (and calculated) distance is roughly 3000 miles (not a sceptimatic quote, but I'll assume everyone here accepts the math FE uses). The ISS, according to ... everyone, is well below that, at only a few hundred miles. Thus, it's inside an atmosphere.

Thus, rockets should work at the altitude of the ISS (and at least up to the altitude of the Sun). Everyone still with me?

Now, one more quote

In a vacuum like space, the tank at 14 psi has nothing to hold it back, at all, so it expands to it's fullest, meaning the cylinder is breached.
Any problems with this?

A cylinder full of air will breach when subjected to a vacuum.

But this cylinder's full of air (see the past 20 pages or so). So it breaches, but then the air immediately freezes against the vacuum, plugging the hole. Problem solved!

Don't get mad at me if I point out inconsistencies in your own arguments, scepti. By your own posts, the ISS can't exist because rockets don't work in a vacuum. But there's no vacuum beneath the ice-dome, so the ISS is not in a vacuum. Thus, the past 80 pages have been irrelevant.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #835 on: July 17, 2013, 09:04:20 AM »
You say the ISS isn't in a vacuum and there's "slight" air pressure at supposedly 230 miles and yet Felix Baumgartner is in "slight" air pressure, supposedly, at 21 miles. Do you see any problems with the bull c rap yet?

Not at all. Felix (and Joseph Kittinger before him) were at an altitude that could support a balloon. They were actually below the point at which meteors 'burn up' in our atmosphere--below the Columbia disaster. So while the air pressure was much less than at sea level, there was/is still very much air pressure there.

The ISS is well above balloon height. However, there's no definite edge to space, and the atmosphere continues well above the ISS. While there's not enough to lift a balloon, there's enough to slow down LEO satellites moving over 7 km/s. Atmosphere here is about 1/1000000 times the density of sea level, or 1.4 x 10-5 psi (.1 Pa), which is much greater than the "1*10-12" to which you have agreed is still not a vacuum.

And since there's air, albeit a very tiny amount, rockets would still work (just as the gun worked in that box with a very tiny amount of air). This this entire thread is irrelevant.
No...it's not this thread that's irrelevant but the post from you is irrelevant and totally wrong.

How is his post irrelevant? You only have a problem with a perfect vacuum, and no one has ever claimed that there are absolutely no gases where satellites orbit. In fact, you even made a thread a while back about satellites needing to be reboosted.
When I argue a point with people like you, I have to use what you accept as true to make my points, which is why I try and destroy your little magical things from how you people think.

Let's take a brief moment to remind ourselves what Sceptimatic has said to date.

I don't know how high the atmosphere, in it's full entirety, stretches but the sun is inside of it.

The sun is in our atmosphere.

Everything other than the very lightest elements (which will freeze against the vacuum)

You say the ice dome cannot exist as the air would expand into that vacuum.....what air?
There is no air to expand into it, it's already expanded gas, either helium or nitrogen or something like that, which "FREEZES" the minute it starts to hit a vacuum

Air (at least helium and nitrogen) will freeze when subjected to a vacuum.

The sun inside the ice dome is what is seen, not in space, outside of it.

The sun is inside the dome.

Okay, so recap of the recap. The dome is made of air that froze against the vacuum of not-Earth. The sun is inside the dome, in our atmosphere. The sun's accepted (and calculated) distance is roughly 3000 miles (not a sceptimatic quote, but I'll assume everyone here accepts the math FE uses). The ISS, according to ... everyone, is well below that, at only a few hundred miles. Thus, it's inside an atmosphere.

Thus, rockets should work at the altitude of the ISS (and at least up to the altitude of the Sun). Everyone still with me?

Don't get mad at me if I point out inconsistencies in your own arguments, scepti. By your own posts, the ISS can't exist because rockets don't work in a vacuum. But there's no vacuum beneath the ice-dome, so the ISS is not in a vacuum. Thus, the past 80 pages have been irrelevant.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #836 on: July 17, 2013, 09:32:26 AM »
Double post there.

Please read my posts before replying. It is not a double-post; I have removed the part about exploding air tanks. I should have known better than to put two ideas into a single post.

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #837 on: July 17, 2013, 09:43:05 AM »
One at a time, please.

Okay, here: Let's take a brief moment to remind ourselves what Sceptimatic has said to date.

I don't know how high the atmosphere, in it's full entirety, stretches but the sun is inside of it.

The sun is in our atmosphere.

Everything other than the very lightest elements (which will freeze against the vacuum)

You say the ice dome cannot exist as the air would expand into that vacuum.....what air?
There is no air to expand into it, it's already expanded gas, either helium or nitrogen or something like that, which "FREEZES" the minute it starts to hit a vacuum

Air (at least helium and nitrogen) will freeze when subjected to a vacuum.

The sun inside the ice dome is what is seen, not in space, outside of it.

The sun is inside the dome.

Okay, so recap of the recap. The dome is made of air that froze against the vacuum of not-Earth. The sun is inside the dome, in our atmosphere. The sun's accepted (and calculated) distance is roughly 3000 miles (not a sceptimatic quote, but I'll assume everyone here accepts the math FE uses). The ISS, according to ... everyone, is well below that, at only a few hundred miles. Thus, it's inside an atmosphere.

Thus, rockets should work at the altitude of the ISS (and at least up to the altitude of the Sun). Everyone still with me?

Don't get mad at me if I point out inconsistencies in your own arguments, scepti. By your own posts, the ISS can't exist because rockets don't work in a vacuum. But there's no vacuum beneath the ice-dome, so the ISS is not in a vacuum. Thus, the past 80 pages have been irrelevant.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 04:55:46 PM by Alex Tomasovich »

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #838 on: July 17, 2013, 09:53:44 AM »
It sounds like you have lost the plot. Good day to you Sir.

This had plot? Let's check the OP...

1 has been derailed
2 has remained unanswered
3 was answered ... ish
4 remains unanswered on my own thread
5 is a good point. Has it been answered?

Re: Space Flight
« Reply #839 on: July 17, 2013, 10:34:32 AM »
It sounds like you have lost the plot. Good day to you Sir.

This had plot? Let's check the OP...

1 has been derailed
2 has remained unanswered
3 was answered ... ish
4 remains unanswered on my own thread
5 is a good point. Has it been answered?
Each question, one at a time.

Nice to know you're internally consistent, and not just dragging this out.