Intercontinental ballistic missile

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2019, 03:56:33 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2019, 02:55:05 AM

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting.

At maximum thrust horizontally on wheels (for instance) a rocket would indeed build up speed by acceleration until  its max thrust is diminished or terminated.

It will do this because it loses mass but not thrust, making it accelerate and also doing this in the same horizontally dense atmosphere consistently as it moves through it.

I have no issues with this.

The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.

First off, anyone who has ever dealt with model rockets, as you claim you have, knows Estes, the leading manufacturer of model kit rockets/engines. Estes is not talking about model rockets on wheels moving horizontally. They are talking about their model rockets that shoot up vertically like, well, how model rockets do. And Estes states, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting."

Is Estes wrong about their model rockets? Are they a part of the conspiracy as well?

If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off and somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind.
One thing it isn't doing (in my opinion) is vertically accelerating under max thrust after initial acceleration at launch.

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2019, 12:29:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2019, 03:56:33 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 12, 2019, 02:55:05 AM

Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting.

At maximum thrust horizontally on wheels (for instance) a rocket would indeed build up speed by acceleration until  its max thrust is diminished or terminated.

It will do this because it loses mass but not thrust, making it accelerate and also doing this in the same horizontally dense atmosphere consistently as it moves through it.

I have no issues with this.

The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.

First off, anyone who has ever dealt with model rockets, as you claim you have, knows Estes, the leading manufacturer of model kit rockets/engines. Estes is not talking about model rockets on wheels moving horizontally. They are talking about their model rockets that shoot up vertically like, well, how model rockets do. And Estes states, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting."

Is Estes wrong about their model rockets? Are they a part of the conspiracy as well?

If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off and somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind.
One thing it isn't doing (in my opinion) is vertically accelerating under max thrust after initial acceleration at launch.

What sort of "somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind' might that be? Do explain.

At a certain point, you have to accept that your model rocketry 'observations' as to what the model rocketry folks state, those who build the model rockets you claim to be your example of how ICBM's don't work, actually accelerate.

You light the rocket, max thrust, it accelerates. You can't even remotely dispute that given model rocketry works in that manner.

You literally have zero evidence that said model rockets don't accelerate under max thrust. You're now claiming that the same model rockets you claimed showed ICBM's couldn't exist have a magical 'throttle'. Tell that to Estes and the model rocket enthusiasts around he globe.

Like I asked, is now model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2019, 03:56:33 AM

The issue is, the rocket is not horizontal in the case I'm arguing. It is vertical and doing exactly the same thing with its fuel, except for the fact that it's having to push through less and less atmosphere, which means it cannot accelerate by losing mass through burning fuel, because the loss of mass is required to keep the rocket at a consistent speed because although it pushes through less resistance it also pushes against less resistance.

Action and reaction in equal terms, always.

Again, as already explained this literally makes no sense.
If by magic the force is based required to accelerate is based upon how much atmosphere it is pushing through rather than its mass, then it having less resistance to push through combined with less atmosphere to push against simply means the same effective thrust.
This puts you in the same setup as the horizontal rocket.

It has the same effective thrust but less mass so it accelerates.

So again, the issue is you, not the rocket.
It is also refuted by actual measurements of rockets rather than just assuming like you do.

Not it doesn't.
The vertical rocket is always pushing through lesser atmosphere with each millimetre. The horizontal rocket on wheels would be thrusting against equal atmospheric pressure throughout.
A massive difference.

Sure, you can't reasonably go to the full scale of an ICBM, but you can at least start getting numbers to be able to extrapolate to an ICBM reasonably.

How about explaining this so called ICBM and tell me if the stats back it up.


RSM-56 Bulava [1]
Type   SLBM
Place of origin   Russia
Service history
In service   2011–present
Used by   Russian Navy
Production history
Designer   Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology
Manufacturer   Votkinsk Plant State Production Association
Produced   2011
Specifications
Weight   36.8 t (36.2 long tons; 40.6 short tons)
Length   11.5 m (38 ft) (without warhead)
12.1 m (40 ft) (launch container)
Diameter   2 m (6 ft 7 in) (missile)
2.1 m (6 ft 11 in) (launch container)
Warhead   6[2] (can carry 10 to 40 decoys) re-entry vehicles with a yield of 150 kt each.[3]
Engine   Three stage solid and liquid head stage
Propellant   Solid propellant and liquid fuel
Operational
range
8,000-8,300 km[4] (it can reach beyond 9300, 10+k km)
Guidance
system
Inertial guidance, possibly with Astro-inertial guidance and/or GLONASS update
Accuracy   350 meters[4]
Launch
platform
Borei-class submarines
Typhoon-class submarine Dmitri Donskoi


Two feet to play with with the missile and tube length.
This means it has just over a foot of space under it (who knows what it's resting on to stay upright in that space) and a little bit of space above before the membrane.

It also has 2 inches play all around its circumference.
Ok, so under this missile we have to believe that compressed air can....not only pressurise the entire container to hold back the membrane from the pressure of the ocean but it also has to have enough compression under the rocket's arse end in just over a foot of space to propel that missile from its tube (all 36+ tons of it) to negate that breached membrane and be propelled by momentum up to the ocean surface and out of that oceanby clearing it's own length to then ignite and thrust to its target 10,000 km away.

And you wonder why I question this stuff?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2019, 04:08:03 AM

The reason for this is, I'm not armed with a library of stories in my favour....you are

No I am not.
I don't rely upon these library stories.
I rely upon experiments which have shown how reality works which allows me to understand how reality works and extrapolate it to things I haven't experimented on.

What experiments have you done to verify what I'm arguing against with ICBM's?

Stop acting like you have no way to improve your understanding of reality and that everyone who disagrees with you is just an indoctrinated fool with no idea about how reality works. It doesn't help your case at all.

I have many ways of improving my understanding of reality, but to get to the reality is not as simple as it seems when you have to wade through a plethora of nonsense/fantasy and a mixture of truth's and misinformation in a deceiving mixture, it seems.

Go and do the experiments suggested, filming it and uploading the footage for all to see. See if it supports your baseless insane claims or if it supports what others are claiming.

Would I be allowed to visit the sub and check out the launch tube and missiles?
Will I be able to film from underwater to see that missile launched and to eject from the sea?
What do you think?

What sort of "somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind' might that be? Do explain.

I can't because I don't have a clue how this would work to have any purpose.
I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.
 

At a certain point, you have to accept that your model rocketry 'observations' as to what the model rocketry folks state, those who build the model rockets you claim to be your example of how ICBM's don't work, actually accelerate.

You light the rocket, max thrust, it accelerates. You can't even remotely dispute that given model rocketry works in that manner.

Under max thrust. I am disputing it. Vertically.

 

You literally have zero evidence that said model rockets don't accelerate under max thrust. You're now claiming that the same model rockets you claimed showed ICBM's couldn't exist have a magical 'throttle'. Tell that to Estes and the model rocket enthusiasts around he globe.

If they don't have a magic throttle them they don't magically accelerate.

Like I asked, is now model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

I'm not really interested in model rocketry. I'm interested in what the topic is about.
You people  seem to be more interested in them.
I understand why.
 It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's

Careful
Sceptis definition of trust isnt the conventional def

Sceptimatic,  you can’t just deny a constant thrust rocket continues to accelerate when all evidence and all telemetry data from amateur to professional rockets prove you wrong.  You are beginning your argument with the presumption that the atmosphere pushes back and becomes thinner etc etc making acceleration with equal thrust impossible.    Even if that were true, observations show rockets accelerate with equal thrust.  That is undeniable.  Ignore the rest of your denpressure, rockets continue to accelerate until their fuel is gone.  That is incredibly easy to test, yet you refuse to test it yourself while sticking your fingers in your ears like a petulant child.

You could take a rocket, secure it, fire it and measure its force over time, this is easy physics.  Then launch an identical rocket, track its telemetry in a myriad of ways, you decide how, and see that it accelerates until it runs out of fuel.  Why is this such a ridiculous notion for you?

Rocket motor burning under water even... 

Rocket in a vacuum displaying acceleration (increasing force) at the same time...

Sceptimatic,  you can’t just deny a constant thrust rocket continues to accelerate when all evidence and all telemetry data from amateur to professional rockets prove you wrong.  You are beginning your argument with the presumption that the atmosphere pushes back and becomes thinner etc etc making acceleration with equal thrust impossible.    Even if that were true, observations show rockets accelerate with equal thrust.  That is undeniable.  Ignore the rest of your denpressure, rockets continue to accelerate until their fuel is gone.  That is incredibly easy to test, yet you refuse to test it yourself while sticking your fingers in your ears like a petulant child.

You could take a rocket, secure it, fire it and measure its force over time, this is easy physics.  Then launch an identical rocket, track its telemetry in a myriad of ways, you decide how, and see that it accelerates until it runs out of fuel.  Why is this such a ridiculous notion for you?

Rocket motor burning under water even... 

I'm not sure what you're trying to show and prove with this one.

Rocket in a vacuum displaying acceleration (increasing force) at the same time...

This one is pathetic. It shows nothing that disproves what I say.
They can't even ignite it and it's not even a vacuum. It's just a low pressure.
Once they do ignite it, it's done in atmosphere and also horizontally.

It proves rockets push off atmosphere and also shows by doing that horizontally it can build pressure by expanding that atmosphere inside the casing to add pressure to the scale.

It proves my point rather than proves your point.

It proves rockets push off atmosphere and also shows by doing that horizontally it can build pressure by expanding that atmosphere inside the casing to add pressure to the scale.

It proves my point rather than proves your point.

What it proves is that you refuse to believe what you don't want to believe. There is no atmosphere there to "push off" against. No atmosphere there to expand and produce pressure against the scale.

No correctness at all to what you say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 01:35:45 PM

It proves rockets push off atmosphere and also shows by doing that horizontally it can build pressure by expanding that atmosphere inside the casing to add pressure to the scale.

It proves my point rather than proves your point.

What it proves is that you refuse to believe what you don't want to believe. There is no atmosphere there to "push off" against. No atmosphere there to expand and produce pressure against the scale.

No correctness at all to what you say.

The videos prove the opposite of what you think they prove.

You have a solid fuel turning to gas in a low pressure chamber. What do you think it's creating?
Not to mention them having to leave a higher pressure inside the chamber in order to actually ignite it.

Everything about that proves I'm correct.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 01:49:33 AM

What sort of "somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind' might that be? Do explain.

I can't because I don't have a clue how this would work to have any purpose.
I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.

Well, then you would be wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean something doesn't exist. You have to do a lot better than that. Prove your point. You have thus far simply relied on, "I don't think so." Back it up.

And no, as it has been explained to you many times and using your own exhibition of model rocketry as your initial argument as to why ICBM's can't exist, they max thrust and accelerate. Dispute that using your own example of your profound knowledge of model rocketry when model rocketry manufacturers say otherwise. Are they too a part of the 'conspiracy'?

Quote from: Stash

At a certain point, you have to accept that your model rocketry 'observations' as to what the model rocketry folks state, those who build the model rockets you claim to be your example of how ICBM's don't work, actually accelerate.

You light the rocket, max thrust, it accelerates. You can't even remotely dispute that given model rocketry works in that manner.

Under max thrust. I am disputing it. Vertically.

You literally have zero evidence that said model rockets don't accelerate under max thrust. You're now claiming that the same model rockets you claimed showed ICBM's couldn't exist have a magical 'throttle'. Tell that to Estes and the model rocket enthusiasts around he globe. Back up your claims and tell us why everyone else is doing it wrong. Just saying so is not evidence.

Quote from: Stash

You literally have zero evidence that said model rockets don't accelerate under max thrust. You're now claiming that the same model rockets you claimed showed ICBM's couldn't exist have a magical 'throttle'. Tell that to Estes and the model rocket enthusiasts around he globe.

If they don't have a magic throttle them they don't magically accelerate.

Again, in your mind, Estes is wrong when they say about their rockets, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting."? And your evidence for this is what?

Quote from: Stash

Like I asked, is now model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

I'm not really interested in model rocketry. I'm interested in what the topic is about.
You people  seem to be more interested in them.
I understand why.
 It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off

Again, that depends upon your idea of max thrust.
If you mean using all the fuel at once to achieve the maximum possible thrust from the fuel, then no, it isn't. But no rocket does.
If you mean just having the maximum constant thrust the engine is designed for, then no it can be.

somehow building its thrust by throttle of some kind.

Nope. No increase of thrust is required.
It can accelerate with that thrust.

Not it doesn't.
The vertical rocket is always pushing through lesser atmosphere with each millimetre.

Yes it does.
Remember, you are claiming it is this atmosphere which is creating the resistance to motion. That means it now resists the motion of the rocket less. This means a lower force would be able to accelerate the rocket more. This is balanced with the reduction of your reactionary force from the exhaust.

So it is balanced, the effective thrust remains the same.
So as it is losing mass, it will accelerate.

The horizontal rocket on wheels would be thrusting against equal atmospheric pressure throughout.

Yes, unlike the vertical rocket which is resisted less and less by the atmosphere.

A massive difference.

I never said they were the same. The effect would be the same.
In one you have constant thrust and resistance due to the constant atmosphere (in your model).
With the other you have a thrust which is reducing based upon the atmospheric pressure combined with a resistance which is reducing based upon the atmospheric pressure.

There is no way for you to be consistent and have your objection.
You require accepting reality, that the object will resist the motion based upon its mass with basically nothing to do with the atmosphere, while at the same time completely rejecting that and claiming the exhaust will only resist moving through the atmosphere with nothing to do with its mass.
You require directly contradicting yourself.

How about explaining this so called ICBM and tell me if the stats back it up.

How about you try dealing with the basics first?
I also provided you math (not stats) to show it is fine to launch from a sub out of the water and you completely ignored it.
If you aren't going to accept the basics of how rockets work, what is the point in providing you with the math?

Ok, so under this missile we have to believe that compressed air can....not only pressurise the entire container to hold back the membrane from the pressure of the ocean

That is the static pressure inside the tube, not just below it. They would then add to this pressure.

but it also has to have enough compression under the rocket's arse end in just over a foot of space

Why just over a foot of space?
While the bottom of the rocket is in the tube, the compressed air can continue to accelerate it.
It will continue to accelerate until it is out of the tube.

to negate that breached membrane

What needs to be negated?

And you wonder why I question this stuff?

No, I know why. Because you don't like reality and seem to want to reject as much physics as possible to pretend it is all a lie and to pretend you are better than everyone else because you "realise" it's "garbage" while other "indoctrinated fools" just "accept it".

What I want to know is why any sane, rational person should reject it.
So far all you have are appeals to ridicule. That wont convince any sane person.

What experiments have you done to verify what I'm arguing against with ICBM's?

Tests on rockets to understand how they work.
Testing to see what force rocket engines produce.
Testing rocket launches to see that they continue to accelerate as expected by mainstream physics.
Tests with water to determine how it resists motion.
Actually understanding the physics behind it.

Meanwhile what have you done?
You see it launch and then just wildly speculate.

What I don't have is the exact drag coefficient for ICBMs, or their relative density, hence I approximated it. Variations in that can change it, but not enough to make it impossible unless they do something stupid like try and push it up sideways.

I have many ways of improving my understanding of reality

Yes, you just choose not to do so.

but to get to the reality is not as simple as it seems when you have to wade through a plethora of nonsense/fantasy and a mixture of truth's and misinformation in a deceiving mixture, it seems.

Sure it is. You ignore all that and do the experiments yourself.

Would I be allowed to visit the sub and check out the launch tube and missiles?

How about you try doing what I suggested instead?
You don't need the ICBM to understand the physics behind it.

If you want to claim that the ICBM is the only way, then all your comparisons because dishonest garbage.
If you demand that the ICBM is the only way then every argument needs to be based upon that. Your soap becomes irrelevant. Bullets in water become irrelevant. Model rockets become irrelevant.
The only way for them to be relevant is to understand the physics behind it and thus be able to extrapolate to ICBMs, without needing to see one or use one.

I can't because I don't have a clue how this would work to have any purpose.

The purpose has already been explained. Trying to have it all accelerate at once would destroy it on the launchpad, not very effective.
If you wanted just constant velocity, then enjoy waiting hours for the rocket to arrive and wasting loads of fuel.

I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.

No, we will continue to say reality, no matter how often you reject it.
If they keep a constant thrust, they will continue to accelerate.
You need more than your baseless garbage to convince us to stop saying it.

Under max thrust. I am disputing it. Vertically.

And what is your basis for disputing it?
Directly contradicting yourself.

If they don't have a magic throttle them they don't magically accelerate.

That's right, they accelerate normally, with no magic involved.

You people  seem to be more interested in them.
I understand why.

You sure don't seem to.
They allow you to perform experiments to verify or refute the claims you make about rockets.
You can easily set up a test yourself to observe that they continue to accelerate until their fuel is depleted. You can also observe that they continue to move upwards after the engine is off.
They don't just magically springboard up to a constant velocity and then stop dead once their fuel is depleted.

But you don't want to do these tests, almost like you know they will show you are wrong and you don't want to accept reality.

It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's

Yes, because they do.
We have actual experiments backing up our claims.
You have nothing but wild fantasy and completely invalid comparisons which indicate that planes and cars can't last more than tens of minutes before needing more fuel.

Everything about that proves I'm correct.

No, nothing about it proves you are correct.

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket.
[/quote]
Yes, and that was your problem, as it literally makes no sense.
It was then shown quite clearly to be garbage with comparisons to cars and planes, but you ignored them.
All that argument did is show that you don't understand how scale works.

And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.

That is just a baseless claim of yours.
Observations of real rockets, both little model rockets and large rockets show that they do accelerate, even when going vertical.

Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because it shows your claims to be pure BS.
You can get model rockets and launch them and monitor them and measure what they do.
If you do that (actually watch and measure them rather than just wildly speculating after the launch) do you know what is observed?
They continue to accelerate while the fuel is being burnt, then after the fuel is depleted they continue moving upwards but slowing down as they do so.

So either every model rocket is in on the conspiracy, or you are just spouting BS.

To show that portion is BS, all it takes is a single experiment, conducted properly.
I have done this experiment, but you refuse to.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because your claim for any rocket is that it cannot accelerate at full thrust, it only "springboards". You used a model rocket as an example, "And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust." The model rocket maker folks say that you are wrong, it does accelerate. So are they mistaken or lying (the latter being conspiratorial in nature)?

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because, those model rockets do everything you claim is impossible for a rocket to do (some of those model rockets are taller than your house).  Either your claims apply to all rockets or none of them.

You can test this...you can test all or your claims about rockets with as simple or complicated a model you want.  I don't know why you refuse to but all your claims would go from theory to fact.  I boggles my mind why you wouldn't want to test this.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 11:16:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic=78872.msg2129392#msg2129392 idate=1546104063

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because, those model rockets do everything you claim is impossible for a rocket to do (some of those model rockets are taller than your house).  Either your claims apply to all rockets or none of them.

You can test this...you can test all or your claims about rockets with as simple or complicated a model you want.  I don't know why you refuse to but all your claims would go from theory to fact.  I boggles my mind why you wouldn't want to test this.

Mike

This is the basic problem with all of FET in general for me.  No one wants to actually test their “theories”.  Instead of of actually testing a rocket in a near vacuum for example, this FE proponent puts a vacuum cleaner behind a balloon and paper behind a balloon and says rockets are impossible in space.

This is the level of research FE proponents are willing to do.  There are a hundred videos on YouTube exactly like this one.   It’s either there is no oxygen in space to burn (rockets bring their own oxidizer and don’t need one, comparing a rocket to a firework is apples and oranges) or rockets need atmosphere to push off of. Again, build a vacuum, confirm it’s a near vacuum, test it out, yet none do. 


Newton’s 3rd Law in action in an example maybe easier to understand, same principle why rocket moves away from its directed thrust, no atmosphere needed.  The rocket builds on its inertia the same way that man was about to fall on his ass pushed back by the gun. 

Flatties and conspiracy nuts just lap this crap up like a thirsty dog in a room full of toilets

But show them a picture from space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 01:27:38 AM

If it's accelerating then it isn't max thrusting from lift off

Again, that depends upon your idea of max thrust.
If you mean using all the fuel at once to achieve the maximum possible thrust from the fuel, then no, it isn't. But no rocket does.
If you mean just having the maximum constant thrust the engine is designed for, then no it can be.

Max thrust is max amount of fuel that can be burned in one go to be ejected.
Once that happens there's no more extra thrust. All you have is reduced mass but also reduced atmospheric resistance which keeps a consistency of speed, not acceleration.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 02:00:23 AM

Not it doesn't.
The vertical rocket is always pushing through lesser atmosphere with each millimetre.

Yes it does.
Remember, you are claiming it is this atmosphere which is creating the resistance to motion. That means it now resists the motion of the rocket less. This means a lower force would be able to accelerate the rocket more. This is balanced with the reduction of your reactionary force from the exhaust.

So it is balanced, the effective thrust remains the same.
So as it is losing mass, it will accelerate.

No it won't. By losing fuel mass it merely hold a consistent speed by thrusting into lesser atmospheric friction but counteracting it by the loss of the mass by ejected burning fuel into it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 02:00:23 AM

Ok, so under this missile we have to believe that compressed air can....not only pressurise the entire container to hold back the membrane from the pressure of the ocean

That is the static pressure inside the tube, not just below it. They would then add to this pressure.

How?
They would have to seal off the entire tube after pressurisation against the membrane and ocean water pressure so they don't breach that membrane before launch. Then they would need to super pressurise the foot and a bit under that rocket.
Any idea how they do this?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 02:00:23 AM

but it also has to have enough compression under the rocket's arse end in just over a foot of space

Why just over a foot of space?
While the bottom of the rocket is in the tube, the compressed air can continue to accelerate it.
It will continue to accelerate until it is out of the tube.

And then what?
A soon as it leaves that tube it's massively slowed down.
No way would that missile shoot out of the water from over 100 feet of depth under that compression. It's not happening.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 02:12:58 AM

I'm merely saying that, if you think they accelerate until they lose their thrust then there must be some kind of throttling up.
If there isn't then they don't do what you say.

No, we will continue to say reality, no matter how often you reject it.
If they keep a constant thrust, they will continue to accelerate.
You need more than your baseless garbage to convince us to stop saying it.

Not vertically they won't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 02:12:58 AM

It's easier to refer to model rockets as if they somehow back up the reality of so called ICBM's

Yes, because they do.
We have actual experiments backing up our claims.
You have nothing but wild fantasy and completely invalid comparisons which indicate that planes and cars can't last more than tens of minutes before needing more fuel.

What experiments do you have to back up your claims.
Let me see them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 11:16:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because your claim for any rocket is that it cannot accelerate at full thrust, it only "springboards". You used a model rocket as an example, "And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust." The model rocket maker folks say that you are wrong, it does accelerate. So are they mistaken or lying (the latter being conspiratorial in nature)?

Springboard is initial acceleration from a dead start. It has to accelerate from that point.

My argument is after this initial acceleration springboard start, it then settles into a consistent speed as long as it continues to full thrust against lesser atmosphere.
If the thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead and accelerates back down. If the thrust diminishes the rocket will continue to to advance with less speed.

Pretty simple really and it shows a reality as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 11:44:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 11:16:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because your claim for any rocket is that it cannot accelerate at full thrust, it only "springboards". You used a model rocket as an example, "And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust." The model rocket maker folks say that you are wrong, it does accelerate. So are they mistaken or lying (the latter being conspiratorial in nature)?

Springboard is initial acceleration from a dead start. It has to accelerate from that point.

My argument is after this initial acceleration springboard start, it then settles into a consistent speed as long as it continues to full thrust against lesser atmosphere.
If the thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead and accelerates back down. If the thrust diminishes the rocket will continue to to advance with less speed.

Pretty simple really and it shows a reality as far as I'm concerned.

Reality as far as you are concerned is not reality.  I can drive a car at 60mph, cut off the engine thus stopping thrust dead and then lock the brakes thus stopping the wheels from turning.  Guess what happens.  The car doesn't instantly stop.  The car will continue moving forward in a skid, because of this thing called momentum.

Because, those model rockets do everything you claim is impossible for a rocket to do (some of those model rockets are taller than your house).  Either your claims apply to all rockets or none of them.

I live on the top floor of 432 Park Avenue in New York City. You may need to revise your model rocket heights. 

On a serious note, certain model rockets may have the ability to build up thrust for a short time to give them the power to accelerate for that period. I don't know for sure. What I'm saying is, if they launch at full thrust then they do not continue to accelerate after initial springboard launch has hit max push, which would be in a second or so.
Taking model rockets out of that equation. It would not apply to a so called ICBM or so called space rocket because a large rocket would certainly require the full might of its available thrust to catapult that rocket into the air to then simply hold a consistent speed.

You can test this...you can test all or your claims about rockets with as simple or complicated a model you want.  I don't know why you refuse to but all your claims would go from theory to fact.  I boggles my mind why you wouldn't want to test this.

Mike

Don't panic over it. You've tested nothing and if you have, show me the proof.
No need to counteract that with me by asking me to show you the proof. I don't have it.
You claim to have it, so show me it.

Scepti,

Are you familiar with discarding sabot artillery?  The reason I bring this up is that it is a highly functional proof that when an object loses mass, while under acceleration or at a constant speed, it will either increase the rate of acceleration (if under acceleration) or continue to accelerate (if at a constant speed). 

The modern tank used by the US Army is the Abrams M1A2 MBT.  It can fire a round that has no explosive element; it is armor piercing only.  The projectile is made from tungsten or depleted uranium, both extremely dense metals. 





In that second image you have a look at the round with the wind vanes still attached and what the projectile looks like after the vanes have fallen off.  The weight of the vanes are usually 50% of the projectile's total weight.  When fired, the vanes separate from the sabot, effectively cutting its weight in half. 





With most rifled weapons, the projectile is at its maximum velocity at the muzzle of the barrel.  With discarding sabots, the round accelerates after leaving the barrel due to the loss in weight.  The same holds true for rockets; as the rocket burns fuel it loses mass and will continue to accelerate until it runs out of fuel.  In fact, a fairly interesting problem that designers of these systems face is the center of gravity changes during flight because of fuel burn and can cause instability if not accounted for properly.

   It’s either there is no oxygen in space to burn (rockets bring their own oxidizer and don’t need one, comparing a rocket to a firework is apples and oranges) or rockets need atmosphere to push off of. Again, build a vacuum, confirm it’s a near vacuum, test it out, yet none do. 

First of all the oxidiser is for rocket thrust with the fuel.
There has to be an end product to that which the atmosphere provides.

As for space. Space is nonsense and so is a vacuum in how we are told.

Reality as far as you are concerned is not reality.  I can drive a car at 60mph, cut off the engine thus stopping thrust dead and then lock the brakes thus stopping the wheels from turning.  Guess what happens.  The car doesn't instantly stop.  The car will continue moving forward in a skid, because of this thing called momentum.

Try it vertically and let me know.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 14, 2019, 11:47:04 AM

Reality as far as you are concerned is not reality.  I can drive a car at 60mph, cut off the engine thus stopping thrust dead and then lock the brakes thus stopping the wheels from turning.  Guess what happens.  The car doesn't instantly stop.  The car will continue moving forward in a skid, because of this thing called momentum.

Try it vertically and let me know.

Why would momentum be different vertically?

Instead of of actually testing a rocket in a near vacuum for example

It is actually a lot harder to do than you would think.
This is because the rocket will produce a lot of exhaust so you need a very large vacuum chamber.

They are better off testing simpler things focusing on the basic physics, like if an object throws another object away, will it be pushed.
That is much easier and doesn't destroy the vacuum.

Scepti,

Are you familiar with discarding sabot artillery?  The reason I bring this up is that it is a highly functional proof that when an object loses mass, while under acceleration or at a constant speed, it will either increase the rate of acceleration (if under acceleration) or continue to accelerate (if at a constant speed). 

The modern tank used by the US Army is the Abrams M1A2 MBT.  It can fire a round that has no explosive element; it is armor piercing only.  The projectile is made from tungsten or depleted uranium, both extremely dense metals. 





In that second image you have a look at the round with the wind vanes still attached and what the projectile looks like after the vanes have fallen off.  The weight of the vanes are usually 50% of the projectile's total weight.  When fired, the vanes separate from the sabot, effectively cutting its weight in half. 





With most rifled weapons, the projectile is at its maximum velocity at the muzzle of the barrel.  With discarding sabots, the round accelerates after leaving the barrel due to the loss in weight.  The same holds true for rockets; as the rocket burns fuel it loses mass and will continue to accelerate until it runs out of fuel.  In fact, a fairly interesting problem that designers of these systems face is the center of gravity changes during flight because of fuel burn and can cause instability if not accounted for properly.

Once that missile is fired vertically under no other propulsion but the initial launch then it can shed as much of its mass as it wants, it still won't accelerate.
The only time it will accelerate is if it hits the arc summit and accelerates down from that point.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2019, 12:00:57 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 14, 2019, 11:47:04 AM

Reality as far as you are concerned is not reality.  I can drive a car at 60mph, cut off the engine thus stopping thrust dead and then lock the brakes thus stopping the wheels from turning.  Guess what happens.  The car doesn't instantly stop.  The car will continue moving forward in a skid, because of this thing called momentum.

Try it vertically and let me know.

Why would momentum be different vertically?

Atmospheric resistance from above with no return push from below...just a low pressure refill from what the projectile leaves as it compresses into the atmosphere.

This is why it's so hard to climb or throw objects vertically as opposed to horizontally.
In a nutshell it's simply a friction grip all the way up vertically with no added push from under it.
This is for a simple projectile I might add, not from something with fuel thrust.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 11:44:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 13, 2019, 11:16:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2019, 02:29:06 PM

Actually, it is you, not us, that has relied on model rocketry to support your claims, erroneously. Yours was the first mention of your observations of model rockets and how ICBM's can't exist in this thread. Page 3. Not ours:

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 29, 2018, 09:21:03 AM

A model rocket will answer that question.
Too much fuel needed to go ballistic and to carry the mass of the rocket.
Basically a ballistic rocket would be dead within a minute or so. Maybe I'm being a bit too kind

Yep I did say this. I used it to explain how a light rocket expends its fuel in short order and so would a larger rocket. And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust.
You trying to continue to use it to argue for you, is pointless. Argue the so called ICBM's if you think you can.

Quote from: Stash

So again, I ask you, is model rocketry a part of the conspiracy?

Model rocketry isn't a part of anything other than people launching models rockets into the air.
Why does it need to be a conspiracy?

Because your claim for any rocket is that it cannot accelerate at full thrust, it only "springboards". You used a model rocket as an example, "And neither will accelerate vertically at full thrust." The model rocket maker folks say that you are wrong, it does accelerate. So are they mistaken or lying (the latter being conspiratorial in nature)?

Springboard is initial acceleration from a dead start. It has to accelerate from that point.

My argument is after this initial acceleration springboard start, it then settles into a consistent speed as long as it continues to full thrust against lesser atmosphere.
If the thrust is cut dead the rocket stops dead and accelerates back down. If the thrust diminishes the rocket will continue to to advance with less speed.

Pretty simple really and it shows a reality as far as I'm concerned.

Your argument and concern are wrong according to the model rocket industry. Again, from Estes, "Actually, the rocket moves faster and faster as the engine is thrusting. At the end of this thrusting portion of the flight (1.7 seconds into flight time from liftoff), the model rocket is traveling at its maximum speed. This maximum speed is 670 feet per second or about 3.5 times as fast as the average speed.
After the propellant is gone, the rocket is moving upward without a thrust force pushing it on up."

So are they mistaken or lying?

Max thrust is max amount of fuel that can be burned in one go to be ejected.
Once that happens there's no more extra thrust. All you have is reduced mass
[/quote]
And that standard thrust will be capable of accelerating the rocket. But reducing the mass means even more acceleration.

also reduced atmospheric resistance which keeps a consistency of speed

Stop just spouting the same lie again and again.
Why should the speed be kept constant?

Again, you have 2 options:
1 - REAL PHYSICS! The thrust (by which I mean "forwards" push on the rocket) is based upon the reactionary force to expelling the exhaust. The force required to accelerate an object is based upon its mass, not the atmosphere, with the atmosphere only contributing to resistance based upon velocity. This means the exhaust will be expelled with the same force and the same force thus acts on the rocket. Thus all the reduced atmospheric resistance does is lower air resistance meaning it will accelerate.
2 - Scepti's fantasy land physics In this world instead of mass determining how much force is required to accelerate an object, the air does along with the mass (something like F=mPa), with a greater atmospheric pressure/density meaning more resistance. Now as the rocket moves into less dense air, there is less resistance. This means that less force is required to accelerate the exhaust out of the rocket, meaning a lesser reactionary force, but also less is needed to accelerate a rocket of a given mass, meaning it is balanced, meaning the same effective thrust (F/P) and thus the rocket will still accelerate as it loses mass.

Instead of picking one of these options, you wish to pick bits of both.
You want the exhaust to only resist based upon the atmosphere, but then have the rocket completely ignore the atmosphere and instead be based upon its mass. You are literally contradicting yourself.

How?
They would have to seal off the entire tube after pressurisation against the membrane and ocean water pressure so they don't breach that membrane before launch. Then they would need to super pressurise the foot and a bit under that rocket.
Any idea how they do this?

Again, your ignorance of how reality works doesn't mean it can't.
You not liking it doesn't mean it is garbage.
If you want to convince anyone you need more than pathetic appeals to ridicule.


Firstly, you are aware the sealing of the tube would likely be done with a similar mechanism to that used to inject the air to push the missile out?
We have valves that can quite easily open and close very quickly, withstand significant pressures, and allow a lot of air to flow through at once.
I already showed just how little pressurisation is required. It isn't "SUPPER PRESSSURE^TM" like you try and present it as.
It is a few atmospheres. "Super pressure" would be thousands of atmospheres.

So it is quite simple: Subs have air tanks. This is part of their design as they can open valves and allow this high pressure air to push the water out of their ballast tanks to surface. All it requires is directing that to the base of the missile tube, which will then pressurise the bottom and start forcing the missile up.

A soon as it leaves that tube it's massively slowed down.

No it isn't.
If it still has the pressurised air behind it, it is still going to be ascending and accelerating.
It will continue to do so until it is all the way out.

No way would that missile shoot out of the water from over 100 feet of depth under that compression. It's not happening.

Why?
I have shown it can quite easily happen. So far all we have to indicate it can't is your baseless claim.
WHY CAN'T IT HAPPEN?

Can you provide any rational argument, or just repeated lies?

Not vertically they won't.

Again, you continuing to reject reality and repeat the same lie wont magically make it true.
You can go and do the tests yourself and see your claims are pure BS.
But you refuse to, because you know it will show you are wrong.
Rockets will continue to accelerate while their engine is on, and then continue moving upwards while slowing down once their engine is off.

What experiments do you have to back up your claims.
Let me see them.

I have already told you and plenty of people have provided videos.
So you asking is extremely dishonest.
You have made it quite clear you do not give a damn what people say or show.
So you go and do the experiment yourself.

My argument is

You have no argument.
You have a lie which you repeat again and again with absolutely nothing to back it up, and which all the evidence refutes.

Atmospheric resistance from above with no return push from below...just a low pressure refill from what the projectile leaves as it compresses into the atmosphere.
This is why it's so hard to climb or throw objects vertically as opposed to horizontally.

We have shown in your other thread that the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
The reason it is hard to climb or throw objects vertically is because of gravity or whatever garbage you use to replace weight.

In a nutshell it's simply a friction grip all the way up vertically with no added push from under it.

Your "friction grip" which most people would simply call air resistance is almost the same horizontally and veritcally.
The big difference is that vertically, the atmosphere decreases in pressure and thus the friction is reduced as you go higher.
That would mean vertically fired projectiles would go further.

Now again, all the evidence shows you are wrong.
So far all you have backing up your lies, are your own lies.
Do you have anything rational at all to back up your claims?
Do you have any evidence at all?
Can you provide a single video of a rocket launching where once it is off the pad it continues at a constant velocity until the fuel is depleted, after which it stops dead instantly?