Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.

Rockets don't push off the atmosphere.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Can't wait for Papa to respond to this one. Its so simple even a jellyfish could grasp it and they don't have a brain

I'm writing to NASA. They should be standing their rockets in a great big bowl of water before lift-off. Water is 1000x denser than air, so presumably that means the thrust at lift-off would be 1000x greater? Plus, a lot of steam would get generated: more gas for the exhaust to push against.

Can't believe those goons didn't think of that.

Actually, the goons at Sea Launch already have:

Rockets don't push off the atmosphere.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ah, see the mistake you're using is that your referring to the physics of the indoctrinated.

Free thinkers like myself and Papa Legba use Poppa-Physics!!, which is the definitive last word on how rockets work.

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on March 13, 2016, 06:15:50 PM

I'm writing to NASA. They should be standing their rockets in a great big bowl of water before lift-off. Water is 1000x denser than air, so presumably that means the thrust at lift-off would be 1000x greater? Plus, a lot of steam would get generated: more gas for the exhaust to push against.

Can't believe those goons didn't think of that.

Actually, the goons at Sea Launch already have:

Fan-TAST-ic!

Only I'm not quite sure the rocket nozzle was actually in the water. I'm going to email them and suggest it as an improvement.

I've managed to fight off the goons here at the unit, but they'll be coming back with a restraining jacket shortly, so I haven't got much time.

Question for Poppa (or any else who has a BSc in Poppa-Fhysics).

Given that we KNOW a rocket needs something (e.g. an atmosphere to push against), and won't work in a vacuum, does that mean the denser the atmosphere, the greater the thrust?

I'm writing to NASA. They should be standing their rockets in a great big bowl of water before lift-off. Water is 1000x denser than air, so presumably that means the thrust at lift-off would be 1000x greater? Plus, a lot of steam would get generated: more gas for the exhaust to push against.

Can't believe those goons didn't think of that.

As I recall the 5 F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust each for a total of 7.5 million pounds of thrust at SL. At alt just before CES (Center Engine Shutdown they were producing more than 9 millions pounds of thrust.

Only I'm not quite sure the rocket nozzle was actually in the water. I'm going to email them and suggest it as an improvement.

Well, if having the rocket nozzle in the water was a good idea, then submarine launched missiles wouldn't use compressed gas to pop them out of the water first, would they?

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on March 13, 2016, 06:15:50 PM

I've managed to fight off the goons here at the unit, but they'll be coming back with a restraining jacket shortly, so I haven't got much time.

Question for Poppa (or any else who has a BSc in Poppa-Fhysics).

Given that we KNOW a rocket needs something (e.g. an atmosphere to push against), and won't work in a vacuum, does that mean the denser the atmosphere, the greater the thrust?

I'm writing to NASA. They should be standing their rockets in a great big bowl of water before lift-off. Water is 1000x denser than air, so presumably that means the thrust at lift-off would be 1000x greater? Plus, a lot of steam would get generated: more gas for the exhaust to push against.

Can't believe those goons didn't think of that.

As I recall the 5 F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust each for a total of 7.5 million pounds of thrust at SL. At alt just before CES (Center Engine Shutdown they were producing more than 9 millions pounds of thrust.

Not enough. Plop those babies in an olympic sized pool and you're on a non-stop trip to Mars, all courtesy of Poppa-Physics.

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on March 13, 2016, 06:39:59 PM

Only I'm not quite sure the rocket nozzle was actually in the water. I'm going to email them and suggest it as an improvement.

Well, if having the rocket nozzle in the water was a good idea, then submarine launched missiles wouldn't use compressed gas to pop them out of the water first, would they?

The incredible acceleration due to the thrust created by the water might cause the warhead to explode? I dunno, I'm making this shit up as I go along. That's how Poppa-Fhysics works, innit!

papa.

What is your highest level of education to date?

papa.

What is your highest level of education to date?

This will be interesting, to see if he tells the truth for a change.

I think you've worn "him" out!

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 13, 2016, 06:45:49 PM

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on March 13, 2016, 06:15:50 PM

I've managed to fight off the goons here at the unit, but they'll be coming back with a restraining jacket shortly, so I haven't got much time.

Question for Poppa (or any else who has a BSc in Poppa-Fhysics).

Given that we KNOW a rocket needs something (e.g. an atmosphere to push against), and won't work in a vacuum, does that mean the denser the atmosphere, the greater the thrust?

I'm writing to NASA. They should be standing their rockets in a great big bowl of water before lift-off. Water is 1000x denser than air, so presumably that means the thrust at lift-off would be 1000x greater? Plus, a lot of steam would get generated: more gas for the exhaust to push against.

Can't believe those goons didn't think of that.

As I recall the 5 F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust each for a total of 7.5 million pounds of thrust at SL. At alt just before CES (Center Engine Shutdown they were producing more than 9 millions pounds of thrust.

Not enough. Plop those babies in an olympic sized pool and you're on a non-stop trip to Mars, all courtesy of Poppa-Physics.

As someone else here once joked (I'm pretty sure they were joking anyway), a solid plate under the rocket would give it the best surface to push off, and if some braces were attached to the rocket and to the plate so that the rocket could 'tow' the plate behind it, it would have that solid surface to push off for the duration of it's flight. 

That sounds an awful lot like work,

It would if any energy was lost during the process.

But it isn't so it's not.

but of course we all know that work can't happen during free expansion.

Are you saying it does?

I hope not, as it would be untrue.

'The fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum shows there is no repulsive force between the molecules.': Peter Fireman,writing in the  Journal of Physical Chemistry.

Note that the above statement also smashes your 'clinking clanking billiard ball molecules bouncing round the nozzle' bullshit false analogy.

It's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.

In the case of a rocket, this is the atmosphere.

Remove that medium & motion becomes impossible.

Newton & Free Expansion both agree with me on this.

If only you lot could come up with ONE Law of Physics that supports your case...

That would be nice!

But no; all you have is gish-galloping, gaslighting & gang stalking...

Which is 'scientific' in a way; just the wrong one.

Toodle-pip, JREF-ugees!

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2016, 06:02:50 PM

That sounds an awful lot like work,

It would if any energy was lost during the process.

But it isn't so it's not.

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2016, 06:02:50 PM

but of course we all know that work can't happen during free expansion.

Are you saying it does?

I hope not, as it would be untrue.

'The fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum shows there is no repulsive force between the molecules.': Peter Fireman,writing in the  Journal of Physical Chemistry.

Note that the above statement also smashes your 'clinking clanking billiard ball molecules bouncing round the nozzle' bullshit false analogy.

It's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.

In the case of a rocket, this is the atmosphere.

Remove that medium & motion becomes impossible.

Newton & Free Expansion both agree with me on this.

If only you lot could come up with ONE Law of Physics that supports your case...

That would be nice!

But no; all you have is gish-galloping, gaslighting & gang stalking...

Which is 'scientific' in a way; just the wrong one.

Toodle-pip, JREF-ugees!

"It's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.

In the case of a rocket, this is the atmosphere.

Remove that medium & motion becomes impossible."

Correct; well done little parrot!

It must also be noted that a rocket does not work by firing Water out of its arse...

I think you will find that it is in fact Fire, not Water, that comes out of its arse.

Do you really expect me to prove that Water is not Fire now?

Or will you just drop your latest bullshit strawman terrible false analogy & get to grips with the scientific principles involved?

LOL!!!

No, of course you won't.

The JREF-ugee war-cry: 'Bullshit, strawmen & terrible false analogies FTW!'.

What useless specimens you all are...

Toodle-pip, Useless Clowns!

'The fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum shows there is no repulsive force between the molecules.': Peter Fireman,writing in the  Journal of Physical Chemistry.

Note that the above statement also smashes your 'clinking clanking billiard ball molecules bouncing round the nozzle' bullshit false analogy.

Does it? It talks about what happens between the molecules, not how they interact with an external body (external to the gas...just to be clear).

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

What are you trying to say?

That the molecules indeed do not touch the sides of the combustion chamber and nozzle?

If this is true they should make a rocket's combustion chamber 0.01mm thick, Seeing as the molecules never touch or transfer force to the internals of the rocket...

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 14, 2016, 03:25:13 AM

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

What are you trying to say?

That the molecules indeed do not touch the sides of the combustion chamber and nozzle?

why isnt a rocket's combustion chamber made 0.01mm thick seeing as the molecules never touch or transfer force the internals of the rocket...

Don't even bother trying to best guess what I'm saying and do not try to put words into my thought typing.
This is why you people rarely merit a response.

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

Except your model is accepted and used by nobody in the scientific community...

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 14, 2016, 03:25:13 AM

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

Except your model is accepted and used by nobody in the scientific community...

Of course it is. It's part of natural life. It's how and why everything works as it does - in the REAL world - not in the fantasy space/universe that you people hang onto like limpets.

Papa

It's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.

Friction causes motion? I need to go back to Flight School and correct a few things about drag (friction) and thrust and lift.

Your BS still doesn't disprove the video proofs of a rock engine working in a vacuum. Papa, wish it or saying it doesn't work just because you think it won't, doesn't make it so.

Papa [quoteIt's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.[quote/]

Friction causes motion? I need to go back to Flight School and correct a few things about drag (friction) and thrust and lift.

Your BS still doesn't disprove the video proofs of a rock engine working in a vacuum. Papa, wish it or saying it doesn't work just because you think it won't, doesn't make it so.

Don't go back to flight school if you don't know that friction causes motion. Resign right now because you have learned nothing about flight or movement for that matter.

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 14, 2016, 03:46:39 AM

Papa [quoteIt's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.[quote/]

Friction causes motion? I need to go back to Flight School and correct a few things about drag (friction) and thrust and lift.

Your BS still doesn't disprove the video proofs of a rock engine working in a vacuum. Papa, wish it or saying it doesn't work just because you think it won't, doesn't make it so.

Don't go back to flight school if you don't know that friction causes motion. Resign right now because you have learned nothing about flight or movement for that matter.

What friction causes the motion when you jump off a 1000 foot cliff or from a ballon 200k feet up?

And you STILL haven't moved how those video of rockets WORKING in a vacuum are not real.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 14, 2016, 03:50:24 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 14, 2016, 03:46:39 AM

Papa [quoteIt's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.[quote/]

Friction causes motion? I need to go back to Flight School and correct a few things about drag (friction) and thrust and lift.

Your BS still doesn't disprove the video proofs of a rock engine working in a vacuum. Papa, wish it or saying it doesn't work just because you think it won't, doesn't make it so.

Don't go back to flight school if you don't know that friction causes motion. Resign right now because you have learned nothing about flight or movement for that matter.

What friction causes the motion when you jump off a 1000 foot cliff or from a ballon 200k feet up?

And you STILL haven't moved how those video of rockets WORKING in a vacuum are not real.

Every movement a person makes is friction. Fire is friction. A balloon 20 thousand feet up is moved by friction. Think on it.

As for your rocket in a vacuum  video. Where is your rocket in a vacuum video?

Conservation of Momentum

COM applies only to Closed Systems, Idiot; that is axiomatic.

And, as you lot spent a vast amount of time banging on about how rockets are Open Systems earlier in the thread, even though I never said they were not, I think it's about time you gave up on this particular strawman...

Stick to your De Laval-schnozzle Fetish, Idiot.

What friction causes the motion when you jump off a 1000 foot cliff or from a ballon 200k feet up?

Oh, so rockets work by jumping off cliffs or out of balloons now, Jules Verne?

They get to 'shpayze' by moving in the opposite direction to it, powered only by gravity?

LMFAO!!!

I really should collect all you retards shitty strawmen in one post, so readers can see how completely ruined you are...

But I can't be bothered.

Toodle-pip, Increasingly-Desperate Idiots!

If people only took notice of how molecules really work then they wouldn't need to go through this random molecule dance in free space, carry on - and would understand why rockets will not work in what we are told is a, space vacuum.

All matter is attached and there is no free space that we can exist in, nor man made objects of any description.

I have already crushed this numerous time.

1.  Why is the rocket the object accelerating and not the atmosphere?

2. Can a gas transfer a force to a solid object?

3. Why does a rocket engine gain thrust as it gains altitude?

4. Are gasses intelligent?

Extremely dense (hundreds/ thousands of kg's per second) exhaust product at 1000psi+ travelling at thousands and yes even ten's of thousands of mph. Far more than just a bit of water coming out it's arse. Or, indeed a bit of fire.

Answer the above questions.

'The fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum shows there is no repulsive force between the molecules.': Peter Fireman,writing in the  Journal of Physical Chemistry.

Note that the above statement also smashes your 'clinking clanking billiard ball molecules bouncing round the nozzle' bullshit false analogy.

Anyone who dares to pull Poppa up on this by mentioning ideal gases versus real gases is guilty of "physics indoctrination".

Anyone who dares to mention that the above quote refers to an ideal gas is guilty of "physics indoctrination".

Anyone who dares to mention that real gases do indeed have non-elastic collisions is guilty of "physics indoctrination".

Anyone who dares to mention that ideal gases are an imaginary gas that is used to create a simplified model that ignores some real world effects is guilty of "physics indoctrination".

Because, Poppa-Fhysics!

It's all very simple: a rocket, like every other thing that moves, does so by creating friction upon the medium through which it moves.

Poppa-Fhysics 101, of course!

In the case of a rocket, this is the atmosphere. Remove that medium & motion becomes impossible.

Un-possible!

Newton & Free Expansion both agree with me on this.

Well, actually they disagree with you, but that's because they are wrong, and Poppa-Fhysics is right.

If only you lot could come up with ONE Law of Physics that supports your case...

Ha, that's got you all stumped, hasn't?

Conservation of Momentum doesn't count.

Newton's Laws of motion don't count.

Because, Poppa-Fhysics!