Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

  • 18 Replies
  • 2350 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« on: September 24, 2015, 08:01:22 AM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2015, 09:25:08 AM »
Papa, I know you're going to be upset
'Cause I was always your little girl
But you should know by now I'm not a baby
You always taught me right from wrong
I need your help, daddy please be strong
I may be young at heart, but I know what I'm saying

The one you warned me all about
The one you said I could do without
We're in an awful mess and I don't mean maybe

Please, Papa don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I'm keeping my baby
Oh, I'm gonna keep my baby, mmm

He says that he's going to marry me
We can raise a little family
Maybe we'll be all right, it's a sacrifice
But my friends keep telling me to give it up
Saying I'm too young, I ought to live it up
What I need right now is some good advice

Please, Papa don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I'm keeping my baby
Oh, I'm gonna keep my baby, mmm

Daddy daddy, if you could only see
Just how good he's been treating me
You'd give us your blessing right now
'Cause we are in love, we are in love

So please, Papa don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep
But I made up my mind, I'm keeping my baby
Ooh, I'm gonna keep my baby, ooh oh

Papa don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep
Papa don't preach, I'm in trouble deep
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep

(Papa don't preach) Oh, I'm gonna keep my baby
(Papa don't preach) Ooh
(Papa don't preach) Don't you stop loving me, daddy
(Papa don't preach) I know I'm keeping my baby
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2015, 01:40:36 PM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!




The dumb and dumber twins (Papa Legba and Sceptimatic) actually think the cannon is recoiled in one direction because the cannonball is pushing off the atmosphere in the other direction, lol.

The two biggest morons presently posting on these message boards.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2015, 03:04:12 PM »
Perhaps Papa or Scepti could provide the mechanics of how the atmosphere pushes the rocket forward.....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2015, 01:41:02 AM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!

Apparently, according to Papa Legba, when a molecule from a rocket's exhaust hits an atmospheric molecule, the exhaust molecule bounces back and creates a propelling force on the base of the rocket.

I find it a little puzzling however, that an atmospheric molecule has the ability to 'bounce' an exhaust molecule travelling at hypersonic velocity, in the opposite direction at a sufficient velocity to impart enough force on the base of the rocket, thereby propelling it?

And regardless of the interaction between the exhaust and atmospheric molecules, there must only be a very small percentage of impacts between these molecules that are perpendicular enough to factor into the equation of those molecules that might be bounced backwards, and not glanced off to the side, and therefore useless as far as imparting any force is concerned.

But the biggest problem of all, concerns the 'supply' of atmospheric molecules. Just after engine ignition, the initial blast of hypersonic exhaust molecules 'interacts' with the atmospheric molecules and momentarily exerts a backward force.  However, immediately after this (micro-seconds), the initial volume of atmospheric molecules has been replaced with the ejected exhaust molecules, and this constant stream of ejected exhaust molecules prevents further atmospheric molecules from replacing those that had been previously 'interacted' with.

In other words, just after ignition there are no more atmospheric molecules adjacent to the engine nozzle for the exhaust molecules to 'interact' with. Therefore, there are no longer any propelling forces being applied to the base of the rocket by exhaust molecules, which had previously and only momentarily been 'bounced' back by the atmospheric molecules immediately after engine ignition.







Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2015, 11:33:31 AM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...
Or, a video:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">! No longer available

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!
Of course you won't.  God forbid that you should learn something that proves you wrong.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2015, 12:53:26 PM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!




The dumb and dumber twins (Papa Legba and Sceptimatic) actually think the cannon is recoiled in one direction because the cannonball is pushing off the atmosphere in the other direction, lol.

The two biggest morons presently posting on these message boards.

In your cannon example, would you say the cannon would go backwards from just the explosion if a cannon ball was not in the cannon. I'd say it wouldn't move at all or maybe just a tiny bit because it may jump backwards a little.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2015, 01:01:20 PM »
Yes, in theory it will move backwards, but by a much lesser amount, due to the fact that the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel is much less than that of the cannonball.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2015, 01:06:08 PM »
This is a thread where chtwrone, mainframes & all other 'round-earthers' (lol!) can tell us that rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!

I imagine it will involve a lot of drawings of cannons & skateboards & endless spam about Newton's 3rd...

Not that I care, cos I won't be reading any of it.

Off you go, guys; educate away!




The dumb and dumber twins (Papa Legba and Sceptimatic) actually think the cannon is recoiled in one direction because the cannonball is pushing off the atmosphere in the other direction, lol.

The two biggest morons presently posting on these message boards.

In your cannon example, would you say the cannon would go backwards from just the explosion if a cannon ball was not in the cannon. I'd say it wouldn't move at all or maybe just a tiny bit because it may jump backwards a little.


Just for the two morons.


The typical recoilless gun functions very much like a conventional gun. The projectile and propellant are supplied as a single round and loaded into the breech. When fired, however, instead of all the propellant blast following the projectile out the barrel, a large portion is allowed to escape to the rear, gaining a rearward directed momentum which is nearly equal to the forward momentum of the projectile. This balance of momenta ensures that the momentum of the rifle/projectile/exhaust gas system is conserved without imparting much momentum (recoil) to the rifle itself


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

? is septic dumb or dumber.

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2015, 01:23:32 PM »
They are joined at the hip, so I think it's fair to refer to them as a combined unit.

Perhaps THE DUMBEREST TWINS would be an apt moniker?
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2015, 01:34:26 PM »
Yes, in theory it will move backwards, but by a much lesser amount, due to the fact that the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel is much less than that of the cannonball.
why would the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel be much less? What is the cannonball actually doing to cause the cannon to move much further backwards? Are you saying the cannonball is offering resistance or something to push against whereas the expelling gasses are not?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2015, 02:15:07 PM »
Yes, in theory it will move backwards, but by a much lesser amount, due to the fact that the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel is much less than that of the cannonball.
why would the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel be much less? What is the cannonball actually doing to cause the cannon to move much further backwards? Are you saying the cannonball is offering resistance or something to push against whereas the expelling gasses are not?


The reference to 'much less weight' is with regards to the weight comparison between that of the cannonball/explosive combined, versus that of just the explosive.

The original question asked if the cannon would still recoil if only the explosive ignited, without the cannonball being in the equation. 
The answer is yes, as the ejection of the weight of the explosive out of the barrel will obviously still create a momentum force, causing the cannon itself to be recoiled, but by a much lesser amount than if the weight of the cannonball was factored into the equation.
Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2015, 09:00:38 AM »
Yes, in theory it will move backwards, but by a much lesser amount, due to the fact that the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel is much less than that of the cannonball.
why would the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel be much less? What is the cannonball actually doing to cause the cannon to move much further backwards? Are you saying the cannonball is offering resistance or something to push against whereas the expelling gasses are not?


The reference to 'much less weight' is with regards to the weight comparison between that of the cannonball/explosive combined, versus that of just the explosive.

The original question asked if the cannon would still recoil if only the explosive ignited, without the cannonball being in the equation. 
The answer is yes, as the ejection of the weight of the explosive out of the barrel will obviously still create a momentum force, causing the cannon itself to be recoiled, but by a much lesser amount than if the weight of the cannonball was factored into the equation.

I assume because of the picture of the cannon in this post, you are saying rockets work in a vacuum in a similar way cannon's work. If so, what in a rocket simulates the cannonball and doesn't a cannon recoil because of firing one ball then another ball one after another? It doesn't keep recoiling continuously after the first cannonball is shot. A rocket doesn't do that, it may recoil when the rocket first ignites, but it doesn't keep recoiling it continuously ejects exhaust out the back during flight with no more recoil at all. How can rocket flight in a vacuum be anything like the recoil of a cannon?
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2015, 09:30:01 AM »
Yes, in theory it will move backwards, but by a much lesser amount, due to the fact that the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel is much less than that of the cannonball.
why would the weight of the explosive being ejected out of the barrel be much less? What is the cannonball actually doing to cause the cannon to move much further backwards? Are you saying the cannonball is offering resistance or something to push against whereas the expelling gasses are not?


The reference to 'much less weight' is with regards to the weight comparison between that of the cannonball/explosive combined, versus that of just the explosive.

The original question asked if the cannon would still recoil if only the explosive ignited, without the cannonball being in the equation. 
The answer is yes, as the ejection of the weight of the explosive out of the barrel will obviously still create a momentum force, causing the cannon itself to be recoiled, but by a much lesser amount than if the weight of the cannonball was factored into the equation.

I assume because of the picture of the cannon in this post, you are saying rockets work in a vacuum in a similar way cannon's work. If so, what in a rocket simulates the cannonball and doesn't a cannon recoil because of firing one ball then another ball one after another? It doesn't keep recoiling continuously after the first cannonball is shot. A rocket doesn't do that, it may recoil when the rocket first ignites, but it doesn't keep recoiling it continuously ejects exhaust out the back during flight with no more recoil at all. How can rocket flight in a vacuum be anything like the recoil of a cannon?

Now imagine a rocket's exhaust being lots and lots of tiny little cannonballs being fired out the nozzle continuously. The rocket is effectively continuously recoiling.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2015, 10:00:20 AM »
I assume because of the picture of the cannon in this post, you are saying rockets work in a vacuum in a similar way cannon's work. If so, what in a rocket simulates the cannonball
I could be wrong since I don't feel like really researching this, so if someone that knows more about rockets can correct me, then please do so. 

The narrowing of the combustion chamber where the combustion gasses exit through the exhaust port.  This would cause higher pressure pushing against the forward part (or toward the back of the cannon) of the rocket's combustion chamber.  It takes more pressure to push the heavy cannonball's mass from a standstill, which means more of a build-up of pressure in the cannon pushing the opposite way vs igniting the powder and having it blast out the barrel unrestricted, thus less pressure pushing the opposite way.

The rocket cone would simulate a muzzle brake on a rifle, only in reverse.  However, a reverse muzzle brake is made for the S&W MP-22 rifle that uses the expanding muzzle blast (expanding exhaust gas of the rocket) to increase recoil (provides more thrust for the rocket).

Quote
and doesn't a cannon recoil because of firing one ball then another ball one after another?
What?

Quote
It doesn't keep recoiling continuously after the first cannonball is shot.
It would if there was no rolling resistance, or any other method to stop it's rearward movement.  An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

Quote
A rocket doesn't do that, it may recoil when the rocket first ignites, but it doesn't keep recoiling it continuously ejects exhaust out the back during flight with no more recoil at all.
Continual combustion = continually expanding gasses in the combustion chamber = continual 'recoil'.

Quote
How can rocket flight in a vacuum be anything like the recoil of a cannon?
Add a fuel source to the cannon so it has continual combustion and redesign the barrel and muzzle take better advantage of the exiting expanding gasses.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41969
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2015, 08:22:55 PM »
Quote
How can rocket flight in a vacuum be anything like the recoil of a cannon?
Add a fuel source to the cannon so it has continual combustion and redesign the barrel and muzzle take better advantage of the exiting expanding gasses.
That's why I feel that a water hose would probably be a better analogy than a cannon.  In fact, a water hose could even demonstrate the difference between free expansion and thrust. 

For example, when the water is under a low flow rate and the end of the hose is wide open , the water is free to flow under its own pressure and no recoil is felt.  This is pretty much what happens with free expansion.

However, if you were to increase the flow rate of the water in the hose and constrict the opening, the pressure would build and accelerate the water faster than it normally would on its own.  Since force = mass x acceleration, the accelerated water imparts a force that is felt by the hose and whoever is holding on to it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2015, 07:11:37 AM »
That's why I feel that a water hose would probably be a better analogy than a cannon.  In fact, a water hose could even demonstrate the difference between free expansion and thrust. 
Actually a water hose perfectly shows atmospheric pressure being the resistant factor against the expelled water, if people actually thought about it properly.

For example, when the water is under a low flow rate and the end of the hose is wide open , the water is free to flow under its own pressure and no recoil is felt.  This is pretty much what happens with free expansion.
No it's not. I don't even know why you can even think this.

However, if you were to increase the flow rate of the water in the hose and constrict the opening, the pressure would build and accelerate the water faster than it normally would on its own.  Since force = mass x acceleration, the accelerated water imparts a force that is felt by the hose and whoever is holding on to it.
The accelerated water hits a more resistant atmospheric barrier which create a reaction to the accelerated water action.
It's easy to see and deduce just by turning the hose, off. When the hose is shut off, the water is still being pushed to the hose nozzle, so is under  pressure because it's not being released, yet it does not create a force of the person holding it.

Only when the lever is opened does that force push the person back because the atmospheric barrier has gripped the water coming out and is now squeezing it back towards the person. Similar to a rocket.

Think of it like a person holding a long bamboo stick and pushing it into a wall. You see the bamboo stick bend as he pushes and in turn it pushes him backwards. The more energy put in, the more equal reactionary energy pushing back.

A bamboo version of a hose and water. Take a look at a water hose being aimed at a building or whatever. You will see it bowed just like bamboo would.

Just remember that the water from the hose has pushed the atmosphere out of the way. the water now occupies the space where the atmosphere was, creating a compressed atmosphere around the water which squeezes back. It's forcing the water back due to this compression upon the water jet and it pushed the person back on one end and seperates the water jet at the other, which is why you see a spray.

I urge any genuine person to have a serious think about what I'm saying.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2015, 07:25:48 AM »
Leave em to it, mate.

I created this thread as a 'special place' for the 'special people' here to all spin fantasies about 'spayzze-rokkitz'...

And ain't they having a grand old time doing just that, bless em!

So best let em be, eh?

Toodle-pip, spaaayzzze-tards!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Rockets DO work in a vacuum, so there!
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2015, 09:04:11 AM »
That's why I feel that a water hose would probably be a better analogy than a cannon.  In fact, a water hose could even demonstrate the difference between free expansion and thrust. 
Actually a water hose perfectly shows atmospheric pressure being the resistant factor against the expelled water, if people actually thought about it properly.

For example, when the water is under a low flow rate and the end of the hose is wide open , the water is free to flow under its own pressure and no recoil is felt.  This is pretty much what happens with free expansion.
No it's not. I don't even know why you can even think this.

However, if you were to increase the flow rate of the water in the hose and constrict the opening, the pressure would build and accelerate the water faster than it normally would on its own.  Since force = mass x acceleration, the accelerated water imparts a force that is felt by the hose and whoever is holding on to it.
The accelerated water hits a more resistant atmospheric barrier which create a reaction to the accelerated water action.
It's easy to see and deduce just by turning the hose, off. When the hose is shut off, the water is still being pushed to the hose nozzle, so is under  pressure because it's not being released, yet it does not create a force of the person holding it.

Only when the lever is opened does that force push the person back because the atmospheric barrier has gripped the water coming out and is now squeezing it back towards the person. Similar to a rocket.

Think of it like a person holding a long bamboo stick and pushing it into a wall. You see the bamboo stick bend as he pushes and in turn it pushes him backwards. The more energy put in, the more equal reactionary energy pushing back.

A bamboo version of a hose and water. Take a look at a water hose being aimed at a building or whatever. You will see it bowed just like bamboo would.

Just remember that the water from the hose has pushed the atmosphere out of the way. the water now occupies the space where the atmosphere was, creating a compressed atmosphere around the water which squeezes back. It's forcing the water back due to this compression upon the water jet and it pushed the person back on one end and seperates the water jet at the other, which is why you see a spray.

I urge any genuine person to have a serious think about what I'm saying.
How is a force transferred to the hose from the atmosphere?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.