Rockets cannot propel in space. Therefore no globe picture could have been taken

  • 393 Replies
  • 47015 Views
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

Indeed, 49 years later was when Apollo 11 made it to the moon. It's funny, laugh. Oh you did, good.

Happily, I don't expect to have to wait that long for your retraction. I do wonder how long it will take you to answer the fire extinguisher question?

Once you have thrown away your reaction mass (fire extinguishers, hot gas, bullets, who cares what form the mass is, though some forms are easier to accelerate than others) you really don't care what happens to it or whether it collides with air or not.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
So they retracted it when the decision to fake space was made
Indeed, 49 years later was when Apollo 11 made it to the moon. It's funny, laugh. Oh you did, good.

Happily, I don't expect to have to wait that long for your retraction. I do wonder how long it will take you to answer the fire extinguisher question?

Once you have thrown away your reaction mass (fire extinguishers, hot gas, bullets, who cares what form the mass is, though some forms are easier to accelerate than others) you really don't care what happens to it or whether it collides with air or not.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Rockets don't work in space, just like an inflated balloon doesn't fly when you release it before tying off the end, ey hoppy? The ejection of the compressed air moves the balloon in the opposite direction, just as Newtons third law of motion predicts.

It's exactly the same principle as what moves a rocket either in our atmosphere, or in the vacuum of space. It's how a bullet fires from a gun, firecrackers launch into the air, and what propels missiles.

NASA has a vacuum chamber in Ohio it used to test spacecraft rocket propulsion systems before sending said spacecrafts into outer space.

But what would I know? Buy a bag of party balloons, or even the "bedroom variety" will do, (Unused would be better, Hoppy & Wise), and try it at home yourself.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?
There are equations for many things. The hard part is knowing when to apply them.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

That lecture about pressure gradient force appears to be about weather. I have no idea how it's made it into a debate about rockets.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?
For one thing the "pressure gradient force" is very relevant to the calculation of buoyancy whether in a gas or in a liquid.
Here is one application to weather systems:
Quote from: Atmospheric Sciences, Northern Vermont UNIVERSITY, STUDENT RESOURCES
The Pressure Gradient Force (PGF)
  • The pressure gradient force, like any other force, has a magnitude and a direction:

  • direction - the pressure gradient force direction is ALWAYS directed from high to low pressure and is ALWAYS perpendicular to the isobars

  • magnitude - is determined by computing the pressure gradient

  • example -->>
     

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
I think what some of my fellow flat_Earthers fail to understand is that once a molecule of rocket exhaust leaves the rocket, it can no longer have any further effect on the rocket. It does not matter if it hits the ground, or a wall, or the gasses of the atmosphere. It cannot have any further effect on the rocket because it never touches the rocket again. This is why it does not matter if the rocket is in the vacuum of space.

They are making an analogy to pushing off against a solid object. But this is a false analogy because the exhaust gas does not propel the rocket by pushing on the atmosphere after it has left the rocket. The rocket propels itself by pushing on the exhaust gasses and then allowing that gas to depart out the back end.

But none of this tells us anything about the shape of the Earth. The claim that space does not exist, and the claim that rockets cannot function in a vacuum, are entirely separate claims from the flatness of the Earth. There is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes the existence of space and there is nothing about a flat Earth that precludes rockets from functioning in a vacuum.

And when Neil Armstrong travelled to the moon and back, the Earth being flat did not prevent him from getting there, screwing up his big line*, and getting back.

* He was supposed to say "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." But he left out the indefinite article, making the line nonsense, since "man" by itself, without an article, is synonymous with "mankind." I'll bet he never went to bed at night without feeling embarrassed over screwing that one up. Still, he was a pretty cool dude.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Do you feel the wind blow in the the back of your head? The. Why don’t you feel the same in your face?

Who said I don't?
And not only feel.
People around you can see it.

You are aware that if wind blows into your face the air will wave the hair at the back of your head.
And if the wind blows from your back it will wave your beard if it is long enough.
Don't tell me you never saw that.
From whichever side the wind comes it will go around your head all the way.

But that's an external flow and external force.
There's no analogy with the way in which rockets work.

Lol ok there. Like you never turned around to take cover from the wind

You still didn't show us what does it have to do with the rocket operating principle.

I was never hit by the wind produced by exhaust gasses from a rocket.
And if I was, it wouldn't slow down the rocket at all. :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.
Both of sockies examples are talking about an area surrounded by atmosphere. Using these examples while talking about a forces in a vacuum is disingenuous.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Actually no. See the medicine ball video. No air required.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism
This on specifically applies to gas move through a pressure gradient so it does apply

A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?
There are equations for many things. The hard part is knowing when to apply them.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.


So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.

Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.

If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.

So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.

Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.

Pressure gradient has nothing to do with it. Fuel contains potential energy. When burned/consumed, that energy is translated into momentum in all directions. If a rocket directs the momentum of the gas resulting from burning fuel in one direction, the rocket itself must gain momentum in the opposite direction since momentum is conserved. The atmosphere does not really play a role in this process (other than providing resistance against the rocket).

If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?

Is there an atmosphere around the sun? I wasn't aware of that.


*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism
This on specifically applies to gas move through a pressure gradient so it does apply

A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?
There are equations for many things. The hard part is knowing when to apply them.

I guess you meant this.

Quote
This on specifically applies to gas move through a pressure gradient so it does apply
No. As I explained, the force arises from the equal and opposite reaction of forcing a gas out of the combustion chamber.

A combustion chamber is not a closed system.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.

So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.

Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.

Pressure gradient has nothing to do with it. Fuel contains potential energy. When burned/consumed, that energy is translated into momentum in all directions. If a rocket directs the momentum of the gas resulting from burning fuel in one direction, the rocket itself must gain momentum in the opposite direction since momentum is conserved. The atmosphere does not really play a role in this process (other than providing resistance against the rocket).

If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?

Is there an atmosphere around the sun? I wasn't aware of that.

Why wouldn’t there be an atmosphere on the sun? It has gas doesn’t it?

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism
This on specifically applies to gas move through a pressure gradient so it does apply

A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?
There are equations for many things. The hard part is knowing when to apply them.

I guess you meant this.

Quote
This on specifically applies to gas move through a pressure gradient so it does apply
No. As I explained, the force arises from the equal and opposite reaction of forcing a gas out of the combustion chamber.

A combustion chamber is not a closed system.

It doesn’t have to be a closed systems to have a pressure gradient. Why don’t you answer the question about the rocket on the sun?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_expansion

I already did. You do not understand how rockets work. The pressure gradient isn't what propels the rocket. As you said high pressure flows to low pressure. This cannot move a rocket. 



No air needed.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2019, 07:09:05 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.
Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.
I'll grant you that it is the pressure gradient between the outlet of the combustion chamber and the exit of the bell that "forces" the exhaust out of the rocket but that is not the direct cause of the thrust.
But the thrust is almost all (and for best efficiency is all) due to the mass flow rate x the exhaust velocity.
The best efficiency is obtained when the exhaust pressure (the exit of the bell) is equal to the external pressure.
This condition can rarely be achieved in practice because in the atmosphere the air pressure varies greatly from about 14.7 psi at sea-level to near enough to zero well before an altitude of 100 km (about 62 miles).

A rocket engine with too large a bell exit area for the pressure is called over-expanded and the exhaust stream can become unstable often with disastrous results - like a shattered bell.
Quote from: Tatumsid
If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?
You would need to go deep into the Sun to reach 5000 psi but the optimum exhaust pressure would then be 5000 psi and as you imply no exhaust could be pushed out and hence no mass flow and no thrust.

This is a very extreme case that demonstrates a very important aspect of rocket engines. The lower the external pressure the greater the thrust produced.

The SpaceX's Merlin 1-D rocket engine as used in the Falcon Heavy rocket comes in two versions:
  • A sea level version:
    Quote
    As of November 2012 the Merlin section of the Falcon 9 page describes the engine as having a sea level thrust of 650 kN (147,000 lbf), a vacuum thrust of 720 kN (161,000 lbf).

    In May 2018, just before the Bangabandhu-1 launch, Elon Musk announced that the 190,000 lbf goal had been achieved.

  • A vacuum version:
    Quote
    As of 2018, SpaceX's Falcon 9 product page lists the thrust of the Merlin Vacuum on the second stage of the launcher at 934 kN (210,000 lbf). The increase is due to the greater expansion ratio afforded by operating in a vacuum, now 165:1 using an updated nozzle extension.
The earlier Merlin 1-D produced a sea level thrust of 650 kN increasing to a vacuum thrust of 720 kN.
That data is not all for the latest Merlin 1-D. I'll try to track that down.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Is there an atmosphere around the sun? I wasn't aware of that.

Of course there is. The chromosphere, corona, and heliosphere are the layers of the atmosphere of the sun.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism


A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.

So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.

Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.

Pressure gradient has nothing to do with it. Fuel contains potential energy. When burned/consumed, that energy is translated into momentum in all directions. If a rocket directs the momentum of the gas resulting from burning fuel in one direction, the rocket itself must gain momentum in the opposite direction since momentum is conserved. The atmosphere does not really play a role in this process (other than providing resistance against the rocket).

If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?

Is there an atmosphere around the sun? I wasn't aware of that.

Why wouldn’t there be an atmosphere on the sun? It has gas doesn’t it?

I guess I didn't understand the question. Do you mean being on the Sun and building an indestructible rocket and trying to launch it off of the sun through its atmosphere? Or are we talking about rockets in space? I was assuming the latter considering it seems to be what the OP is about. If the former, I have no idea what you're going on about.

The funny thing is you are making exactly the same mistake the New York Times made back in 1920 when Goddard started launching rockets. They printed a retraction.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-greatest-newspaper-correction-ever-written-49-year-1491590487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#Publicity_and_criticism
A rocket in the sun’s atmosphere just like the question asked

A retraction 49 years later lol. Good one. Maybe the new owner of the times got a kickback for that retraction.
Still no evidence of an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
Once again, the force isn't from the pressure gradient. Simply stated, a force is imparted on the exhaust so the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. This is just like throwing a medicine ball or using a fire extinguisher while siting on a chair. I want you to acknowledge you under stand this.

Then why is there an equation to calculate pressure gradient force?

Mostly for things like wind and weather. Not for rocket propulsion.

You might want to lay off the YouTube and hit the books. This is really, really basic stuff regardless of the shape of the earth or your NASA conspiratorial proclivities.

So you are saying the exhaust doesn’t move out of the rocket due to pressure gradient.

Why hasn’t anybody answered this question before saying pressure gradient is irrelevant.

Pressure gradient has nothing to do with it. Fuel contains potential energy. When burned/consumed, that energy is translated into momentum in all directions. If a rocket directs the momentum of the gas resulting from burning fuel in one direction, the rocket itself must gain momentum in the opposite direction since momentum is conserved. The atmosphere does not really play a role in this process (other than providing resistance against the rocket).

If a rocket made of indestructible material went to the sun where atmospheric pressure is 5000psi, and the pressure in the rocket combustion chamber is 5000psi, will the exhaust be pushed out of the rocket?

Is there an atmosphere around the sun? I wasn't aware of that.

Why wouldn’t there be an atmosphere on the sun? It has gas doesn’t it?

I guess I didn't understand the question. Do you mean being on the Sun and building an indestructible rocket and trying to launch it off of the sun through its atmosphere? Or are we talking about rockets in space? I was assuming the latter considering it seems to be what the OP is about. If the former, I have no idea what you're going on about.

I think talking about rockets in the sun is a distraction. No one's flying to the sun, it's a silly question which has nothing to do with a rocket going into a vacuum.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

I think talking about rockets in the sun is a distraction. No one's flying to the sun, it's a silly question which has nothing to do with a rocket going into a vacuum.

 I the question is relevant. People are saying that pressure gradient is not required for exhaust movement. It needs the be made clear that the reason why there is movement is because of pressure gradient

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Another, different simplification:

Inside combustion chamber (brown) fuel burns and produces high temperature / high pressure gas (yellow).
The gas pressurizes combustion chamber walls in all directions.
Radial forces (green) cancel themselves.
Axial forces (blue) also cancel themselves, with one exception:
One axial force (red) directly opposite from the nozzle, doesn't have the opposing force (light blue)
because the gas is there exiting instead of pressing the wall.

Asymmetric distribution of the pressure produces axial force that pushes the combustion chamber / the rocket.


« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 06:35:38 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
I think talking about rockets in the sun is a distraction. No one's flying to the sun, it's a silly question which has nothing to do with a rocket going into a vacuum.

 I the question is relevant. People are saying that pressure gradient is not required for exhaust movement. It needs the be made clear that the reason why there is movement is because of pressure gradient


I said the pressure gradient is not required for rocket movement. Yes if there was no gradient from the combustion chamber you would have a bomb.

But the difference in pressure from inside the chamber to outside only helps to set the exhaust velocity. It does not create wind which propels the rocket.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 07:10:52 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

I think talking about rockets in the sun is a distraction. No one's flying to the sun, it's a silly question which has nothing to do with a rocket going into a vacuum.

 I the question is relevant. People are saying that pressure gradient is not required for exhaust movement. It needs the be made clear that the reason why there is movement is because of pressure gradient

If you think that making a rocket work in the sun's atmosphere is a relevant question then there's a whole lot of engineering we need to discuss, like how do we stop the rocket from melting, how long can we keep the crew alive, how do we carry enough fuel to get there, does it need wings, etc. Is any of that relevent to the topic of getting a rocket in space above the earth in order to take a picture? No, not really. Let's stay on topic.

In a vacuum any movement of pressurised gas will cause thrust, you don't even need to burn anything. Many spacecraft use cold gas thrusters for orientation and maneuvering. It doesn't have to be gas, any mass thrown in one direction will cause the spacecraft to move in the opposite direction, no matter whether it's in an atmosphere or vacuum.
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Another, different simplification:

Inside combustion chamber (brown) fuel burns and produces high temperature / high pressure gas (yellow).
The gas pressurizes combustion chamber walls in all directions.
Radial forces (green) cancel themselves.
Axial forces (blue) also cancel themselves, with one exception:
One axial force (red) directly opposite from the nozzle, doesn't have the opposing force (light blue)
because the gas is there exiting instead of pressing the wall.

Asymmetric distribution of the pressure produces axial force that pushes the combustion chamber / the rocket.




This illustrates in a nice simple picture what I said: The thrust comes from gas pushing on the front-facing side of the combustion chamber.

I will add that Tatumsid is correct about one thing: If the rocket is in an atmosphere whose pressure is equal to the pressure of the gasses inside the rocket combustion chamber there will be no thrust. The reason is that an equal amount of external gas will enter the chamber as the amount of internal gas that leaves the chamber, and the two flows will balance each other, resulting in zero net thrust.

The lower the external pressure, the greater the net forward thrust. The atmosphere of the Earth is at a much lower pressure than the inside of the rocket engine, so there is a lot of thrust. In the vacuum of space there's even less (i.e. nearly zero) external pressure so the rocket engine develops just a little more thrust than it does in the Earth's atmosphere.

I'm sure scientists would love to send a rocket into the sun to obtain a sample and return it to Earth. But since they do not have and cannot make an indestructible rocket, the best they can do is sample the solar wind as it passes a spacecraft far away from the sun.