The ISS is a Gulfstream jet.

Mind you a very high exhaust velocity is very important (it increases the specific impulse of the fuel), that is one reason LH2 + LOX is so attractive.

LOL!!!

The higher the velocity the higher the Pressure, retard.

Because it's Pressure that creates thrust, via Force=Pressure x Area.

And the Area part of F=pa on a rocket is measured at the nozzle exit...

Guess why?

That's right; because its Force is created by Pressure on the atmosphere!

And ZERO atmosphere = ZERO Pressure; guess what happens when you multiply something by ZERO, dummies?

As for using LH2 as fuel; HAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOX was bad enough, but LH2?

GTFO!

Never happened, ever, except maybe in small prototypes... Though I can't really see why they'd bother with even them, what with liquid-fuelled rocketry being a known technical dead-end since the late 1950s...

Total sci-fi nonsense anyhow; you Clowns are FUNNY!

No contradictions as long as you're using the right terminology a shameless Liar.

Fixed your bullshit for you.

Anyhoo, you can't have meaningful pressure inside the combustion chamber/nozzle without back-pressure.

And you can't have back-pressure in a vacuum.

In fact, you can't show me that you can have combustion in a vacuum, either...

And Boyle's law also states you can't even have a gas AT ALL in a vacuum!

Again; you REALLY need to start working on that new set of laws of physics, Clowns...

Cos the ones we've currently got simply will not let ypuu hazz shpayzeshippz!

Quote from: markjo the shill on April 27, 2016, 05:32:28 AM

No contradictions as long as you're using the right terminology a shameless Liar.

Fixed your bullshit for you.

Anyhoo, you can't have meaningful pressure inside the combustion chamber/nozzle without back-pressure.

And you can't have back-pressure in a vacuum.

That's why rocket engines generally use convergent-divergent (DeLaval) nozzles, so that the flow of the combustion gasses through the throat can be choked.  The choked flow creates the required back-pressure.

In fact, you can't show me that you can have combustion in a vacuum, either...

If you have a spark very close to where the fuel and oxidizer are sprayed into the combustion chamber, then there is no reason that you can't have combustion.

And Boyle's law also states you can't even have a gas AT ALL in a vacuum!

Well duh.  If you introduce gas into an evacuated chamber, then it's no longer a vacuum.

Again; you REALLY need to start working on that new set of laws of physics, Clowns...

And you need to start working on understanding the age old laws of physics on which rockets are based.

LOL!!!

Literally everything you wrote is the reverse of the truth.

Did James Randi himself 'train' you in this type of inversion?

Eh, Doesn't-dance-with-women?

(that's markjo's Native American name lol)

Quote from: rabinoz the shill on April 27, 2016, 05:09:20 AM

Mind you a very high exhaust velocity is very important (it increases the specific impulse of the fuel), that is one reason LH2 + LOX is so attractive.

LOL!!!

The higher the velocity the higher the Pressure, retard.

Because it's Pressure that creates thrust, via Force=Pressure x Area.

And the Area part of F=pa on a rocket is measured at the nozzle exit...

Guess why?

That's right; because its Force is created by Pressure on the atmosphere!

And ZERO atmosphere = ZERO Pressure; guess what happens when you multiply something by ZERO, dummies?

As for using LH2 as fuel; HAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOX was bad enough, but LH2?

GTFO!

Never happened, ever, except maybe in small prototypes... Though I can't really see why they'd bother with even them, what with liquid-fuelled rocketry being a known technical dead-end since the late 1950s...

Total sci-fi nonsense anyhow; you Clowns are FUNNY!

Quote from: markjo the shill on April 27, 2016, 05:32:28 AM

No contradictions as long as you're using the right terminology a shameless Liar.

Fixed your bullshit for you.

Anyhoo, you can't have meaningful pressure inside the combustion chamber/nozzle without back-pressure.

And you can't have back-pressure in a vacuum.

In fact, you can't show me that you can have combustion in a vacuum, either...

And Boyle's law also states you can't even have a gas AT ALL in a vacuum!

Again; you REALLY need to start working on that new set of laws of physics, Clowns...

Cos the ones we've currently got simply will not let ypuu hazz shpayzeshippz!

So, you're saying that we can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?  Terrific.  I'll ring up the propulsion research team at my university, and tell them to call off their next engine tests, uninstall their CFD software, burn their textbooks, and tear up their graduate theses, because the Almighty Papa Legba knows more about fluid dynamics than any of them, and he says it won't work.  I'm sure they'll understand. 

So, you're saying that we can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

Who's this 'we', white man?

Do you & a group of friends stand in the back of a rocket pushing 'huge amounts of mass' out of it?

You don't sound much like an aerospace engineering student when you use such garbled & unscientific terms...

In fact you sound like just another sock-puppet Shill quoting his Shill handbook.

Go away & stop your bullshit.

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 07:08:49 AM

So, you're saying that we can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

Who's this 'we', white man?

Do you & a group of friends stand in the back of a rocket pushing 'huge amounts of mass' out of it?

You don't sound much like an aerospace engineering student when you use such garbled & unscientific terms...

In fact you sound like just another sock-puppet Shill quoting his Shill handbook.

Go away & stop your bullshit.

LOL Dude, I was beginning to think you were actually a good troll. Until! I come back to this same old forum, on this same old thread, where you're posting the same old middle-school insults.

Papa: "Do you want to buy some death sticks?"

Me: "You do not want to sell me death sticks"

Papa: : "I don't want to sell you death sticks"

Me: "You want to go home and rethink your life"

Papa: "I want to got home and rethink my life"
*still comes to the same old conclusion trying to sell death sticks*

I was beginning to think you were actually a good troll.

Can't say the same for you.

But thanks for riding in to Defend the Defender of NASA from his gross mistake...

It doesn't look dodgy at all & is a totally legit thing to do no probs 'dude'.

Seems Sir Lancelot ain't as good with his weapon as he thought he was...

Still, there's always them rolly-eye emojis, eh?

Oooh - they're scary as Hell; ask markjo!

Quote from: rabinoz the shill on April 27, 2016, 05:09:20 AM

Mind you a very high exhaust velocity is very important (it increases the specific impulse of the fuel), that is one reason LH2 + LOX is so attractive.

LOL!!!

The higher the velocity the higher the Pressure, retard.

Because it's Pressure that creates thrust, via Force=Pressure x Area.

And the Area part of F=pa on a rocket is measured at the nozzle exit...

Guess why?

That's right; because its Force is created by Pressure on the atmosphere!

And ZERO atmosphere = ZERO Pressure; guess what happens when you multiply something by ZERO, dummies?

As for using LH2 as fuel; HAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOX was bad enough, but LH2?

GTFO!

Never happened, ever, except maybe in small prototypes... Though I can't really see why they'd bother with even them, what with liquid-fueled rocketry being a known technical dead-end since the late 1950s...

Total sci-fi nonsense anyhow; you Clowns are FUNNY!

Quote from: markjo the shill on April 27, 2016, 05:32:28 AM

No contradictions as long as you're using the right terminology a shameless Liar.

Fixed your bullshit for you.

Anyhoo, you can't have meaningful pressure inside the combustion chamber/nozzle without back-pressure.

And you can't have back-pressure in a vacuum.

In fact, you can't show me that you can have combustion in a vacuum, either...

And Boyle's law also states you can't even have a gas AT ALL in a vacuum!

Again; you REALLY need to start working on that new set of laws of physics, Clowns...

Cos the ones we've currently got simply will not let ypuu hazz shpayzeshippz!

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?  Terrific.  I'll ring up the propulsion research team at my university, and tell them to call off their next engine tests, uninstall their CFD software, burn their textbooks, and tear up their graduate theses, because the Almighty Papa Legba knows more about fluid dynamics than any of them, and he says it won't work.  I'm sure they'll understand.  They're usually quite sympathetic to people with Down syndrome. 

Don't know why I haven't thought of this before but rockets work like semi auto and full auto firearms. The force of the bullet firing in the chamber moves the slide or bolt back to reload the second round. And if you notice in slow motion the bolt or slide doesn't move until the bullet exists the end of the barrel so its not doing it based off of the air it displace.

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

No; I'm saying there's no such thing as a 'spacecraft'.

Again, you sound more like a sci-fi fanboy shill than an aerospace engineering student.

When you start using correct terminology I may begin to take your bullshit seriously...

Though throwing in a rolly-eye emoji may also help convince me?

They are VERY persuasive rhetorical devices!

Don't know why I haven't thought of this before

I do.

Because it's bullshit & you should be ashamed you wrote it.

Because the work is done by expanding gasses...

And you REALLY need to stick to a purely mechanical-based bullshit-analogy if you want idiots to buy your shpayze-rokkit false analogies.

Best stick with the man on a skateboard, eh?

Toodle-pip, scientards!

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 07:56:43 AM

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

No; I'm saying there's no such thing as a 'spacecraft'.

Tomorrow morning at 5:02:11, there's going to be an Iridium flare where I am.  I know where the satellite, Iridium 57, will be, which antenna will be reflecting (the left one), and how far away it will be (864 km).  I know this satellite launched on March 30, 1998.  I can track this satellite, and others, whenever I choose, and I know and can calculate their orbital elements. 
If it's not a satellite, then what is it?  Hmm? 

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 07:56:43 AM

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

No; I'm saying there's no such thing as a 'spacecraft'.

Again, you sound more like a sci-fi fanboy shill than an aerospace engineering student.

When you start using correct terminology I may begin to take your nonsense  seriously...

Though throwing in a rolly-eye emoji may also help convince me?

They are VERY persuasive rhetorical devices!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 27, 2016, 08:01:24 AM

Don't know why I haven't thought of this before

I do.

Because it's nonsense & you should be ashamed you wrote it.

Because the work is done by expanding gasses...

And you REALLY need to stick to a purely mechanical-based bullshit-analogy if you want idiots to buy your shpayze-rokkit false analogies.

Best stick with the man on a skateboard, eh?

Toodle-pip, scientards!

The gases is the exhaust pushing against chamber (the bell of the rocket) causing the casing (rocket body) to eject. It's still sound. As I said before the only mode of propulsion used by flying objects available to the public that is based on pushing air is the propeller. Jets and rockets work by pushing on the heavier mass of the jet or rocket.

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 08:06:43 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 07:56:43 AM

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

No; I'm saying there's no such thing as a 'spacecraft'.

Again, you sound more like a sci-fi fanboy shill than an aerospace engineering student.

When you start using correct terminology I may begin to take your nonsense  seriously...

Though throwing in a rolly-eye emoji may also help convince me?

They are VERY persuasive rhetorical devices!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 27, 2016, 08:01:24 AM

Don't know why I haven't thought of this before

I do.

Because it's nonsense & you should be ashamed you wrote it.

Because the work is done by expanding gasses...

And you REALLY need to stick to a purely mechanical-based bullshit-analogy if you want idiots to buy your shpayze-rokkit false analogies.

Best stick with the man on a skateboard, eh?

Toodle-pip, scientards!

The gases is the exhaust pushing against chamber (the bell of the rocket) causing the casing (rocket body) to eject. It's still sound. As I said before the only mode of propulsion used by flying objects available to the public that is based on pushing air is the propeller. Jets and rockets work by pushing on the heavier mass of the jet or rocket.

You messed right up there.

Tomorrow morning at 5:02:11, there's going to be an Iridium flare where I am.

Fantastic news for sci-fi fanboy shills everywhere...

Though I imagine genuine aerospace engineering students won't give a flying fuck.

If it's not a satellite, then what is it? 

Dunno; 'Iridium Flare' sounds like a professional wrestler to me, but you're the fanboy so meh...

Anyhoo; why don't you video this epochal event for us & post the results, eh?

For the Defence of the Fair Maiden NASA!

The gases is the exhaust pushing against chamber (the bell of the rocket) causing the casing (rocket body) to eject.

 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 27, 2016, 09:44:47 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 27, 2016, 08:06:43 AM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on April 27, 2016, 07:56:43 AM

So, you're saying that a spacecraft can push huge amounts of propellant mass out of a rocket engine at extreme velocities, and somehow there will be no reaction force at all?

No; I'm saying there's no such thing as a 'spacecraft'.

Again, you sound more like a sci-fi fanboy shill than an aerospace engineering student.

When you start using correct terminology I may begin to take your nonsense  seriously...

Though throwing in a rolly-eye emoji may also help convince me?

They are VERY persuasive rhetorical devices!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 27, 2016, 08:01:24 AM

Don't know why I haven't thought of this before

I do.

Because it's nonsense & you should be ashamed you wrote it.

Because the work is done by expanding gasses...

And you REALLY need to stick to a purely mechanical-based bullshit-analogy if you want idiots to buy your shpayze-rokkit false analogies.

Best stick with the man on a skateboard, eh?

Toodle-pip, scientards!

The gases is the exhaust pushing against chamber (the bell of the rocket) causing the casing (rocket body) to eject. It's still sound. As I said before the only mode of propulsion used by flying objects available to the public that is based on pushing air is the propeller. Jets and rockets work by pushing on the heavier mass of the jet or rocket.

You messed right up there.

What did I messed up?

What did I messed up?

Well, as your hive-mind disinfo-shill chums won't tell you (because you never break ranks or criticise each other, which comes across as totally normal behaviour & completely legit) then why should scepti or I?

But you did 'messed up'; just take our word for it.

And stick to mechanical, contact-based Crappy False Analogies in future, okay?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 27, 2016, 11:55:08 AM

What did I messed up?

Well, as your hive-mind disinfo-shill chums won't tell you (because you never break ranks or criticise each other, which comes across as totally normal behaviour & completely legit) then why should scepti or I?

But you did 'messed up'; just take our word for it.

And stick to mechanical, contact-based Crappy False Analogies in future, okay?

Oh I get it! You don't have an answer. Why didnt you say so? It would've saved bandwidth. Look in no way is that considered acceptable in either court of law or a proper debate which you seem to not know that one even exists.

 

Oh, look: a Gulfstream jet belonging to NASA with some kind of pod attached beneath it & a nice big Masonic '3' on the runway!

]

Just like the thing I saw which was capable of imitating teh silly fake ISS!

Coincidence?

LOL!!!

 

Oh, look: a Gulfstream jet belonging to NASA with some kind of pod attached beneth it & a nice big Masonic '3@ on the runway!

]

Just like the thing I saw which was capable of imitating teh silly fake ISS!

Coincidence?

LOL!!!

 

Oh look: a Special Olympics competitor ignoring the explanation of the plane and pod. Ignoring the fact that a plane can't circle the globe in 90 minutes.

So stupid he can't read a simple website that ill tell him when to look into the sky to see the ISS.

Coincidence?

LOL!!!

Oh look an angry shitposting perma-virgin autist! 

Oh, look: a Gulfstream jet belonging to NASA with some kind of pod attached beneath it & a nice big Masonic '3' on the runway!

]

Just like the thing I saw which was capable of imitating teh silly fake ISS!

Coincidence?

LOL!!!

You know the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's picture has been thoroughly addresses multiple times in this thread and you still prop it up as proof. NO spotlight on a aircraft looks like the pod on the bottom. That pod is radar equipment. The military has similar equipment on their AWACS.

You know the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yes, which is why you should all stop trying to gaslight & brainwash me.

Oh look an angry shitposting perma-virgin autist! 

Oh look, another shitty insult!  Guess they don't teach comebacks in the prison psychiatric ward. 

Oh look an angry shitposting perma-virgin autist! 

Did the baby get hit in the face by reality?

lol

One gulfstream jet to cover the earth in 90 minutes.

lol

All hail Papa Yaakoff Legbatard!

One gulfstream jet to cover the earth in 90 minutes.

LOL!!!

Who says there's only one?

& who's looking anyway?

Two & a half dumb-as-dogshit geeks world-wide is my guess.

Besides, it doesn't even turn up most of the time, but NASA knows nobody except autistic retards like you look for it, & you're brainwashed enough to swallow any old bullshit they say...

Win-Win for NASA fraud - because Nerds!

Anyhoo, angry virgins; didn't Iridium Flare once fight Apollo Lander for the World Heavyweight title?

We'll find out when Blue Balls posts his video I guess...

TEEEEEEEEE!!! Pkhggggggggrrrblllllaaaaarrrrhhhhhggg.

No, just no. Again: Use your words. Please.

This is the upper fora.  If you people want to play around, make low content posts, and change each other's quotes, do it in the lower fora.  Consider this a warning.

Aye captain. This is a serious scientific forum.

#somuchmeta

NO spotlight on a aircraft looks like the pod on the bottom.

And you know this how?

Have you seen every design ever manufactured, even classified ones?

That pod is radar equipment.

And you know this how?

Have you looked inside it in person?

Do you have X-ray eyes like markjo?

Fact is that pod could easily contain some form of spotlight/projector & you have no way of knowing whether it does or not.

You need to work on your strawmen, cannon-fodder kid, cos they fall apart at the seams too easily.