HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

  • 3179 Replies
  • 406257 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #210 on: July 24, 2019, 09:37:38 PM »
You still haven't watched this video :


Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".
Doesn't he think that the tonnes of exhaust gas ejected from an F-1 has inertia? I find it incomprehensible that a "scientist" can ignore that.

Yeah, I hope this mechanical engineer never 'engineers' anything I'm in, on, or near.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #211 on: July 25, 2019, 02:43:53 AM »
Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)
It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
Causing this gas to shoot out the back is what forces the rocket.
The gas is one body which is forced out the back of the rocket. The other body is the rocket, being forced forwards by the ground.

You repeatedly ignoring that will not help you.

Stop just saying the gas is coming out the back, you need to explain why it does so in the first place.

Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP :

[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.

Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.

There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.

At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered useless.

As it turns out NASA does not fall into the 3rd Law trap (nor does it go around correcting all the sites who do) instead claiming that thrust of a space rocket is generated using what I call The Wrong Formula, an egregious farce of Newton's 2nd law which I will address in a later next post.

To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context. NASA itself avoids using Newton’s 3rd Law as the reason why their rockets work so well in space choosing to use Newton’s 2nd Law instead. I will show in a later post why NASA’s use the 2nd Law is equally invalid and in fact a hideous misrepresentation of the laws of physics that would give a freshman college student a failing grade yet earns NASA an "A" thanks to its pretty pictures, dramatic story lines, and gutsy champions, the astronauts.


A COMMON OBJECTION :

Quote
On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.

But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?

So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.

THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :

Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.

Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.

The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.

AN EXCERPT FROM ONE OTHER COMMENT POSTED WITHIN THE SAME THREAD :

Quote
I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.

THE RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOVE :

You are correct, in addition to the gas leaving the ship for "free" (doing no work, exerting no force) the change in the mass of the rocket due to the escaped gas has nothing to do with rocket propulsion. In order for "lost mass" to exert force the ship MUST be accelerating. The formula is:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

If Acceleration is 0 then force is 0 no matter what the mass or how it is changes over time.

Put another way, if the force of the gas (force = 0) exiting the ship didn't cause the ship to move (the ship isn't accelerating) due to free expansion then looking at the problem from the perspective of the mass of the gas leaving the ship won't magically cause the ship to move all of a sudden.

NASA tries to pull this nonsense as well as some other ridiculous fake science stunts to make it seem like their rockets have a chance to function in a vacuum.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #212 on: July 25, 2019, 02:49:48 AM »
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.

1. What is your point?
2. You are an adult person and you still believe in moon-landing fairytale?
3. So, you openly admit the veracity of your notorious diagnose (the nature of your "illness") : NASA shill???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #213 on: July 25, 2019, 03:25:08 AM »

THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :

Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.

Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.

The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.


Heavens above, you are pathetic... You accept a gun would recoil in a vacuum but a rocket would not - what is a rocket but a gun FIRING MANY MANY SMALL BULLETS!?

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #214 on: July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM »
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.

1. What is your point?
2. You are an adult person and you still believe in moon-landing fairytale?
3. So, you openly admit the veracity of your notorious diagnose (the nature of your "illness") : NASA shill???

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.

3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 04:20:16 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #215 on: July 25, 2019, 05:10:07 AM »
<< Read the following! >>
You dare post accusations like this:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to.
I can't claim to always be correct but if you can prove I made mistakes please point them out.

But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*4.* Feel free to explain away the conundrum pointed out in the last part of this video :
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :

It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:

How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas
The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":

Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku

Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":

Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, either YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives or admit to your deception.

If you are going to accuse NASA of lying that you should use genuine NASA photos and not ones "Photoshopped" to look obviously wrong!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 04:19:44 PM by rabinoz »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #216 on: July 25, 2019, 05:25:51 AM »
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.

Who says it would?

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :


3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.

This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :



« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 05:27:46 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #217 on: July 25, 2019, 05:32:56 AM »
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM ».

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #218 on: July 25, 2019, 05:34:38 AM »
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/, for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #219 on: July 25, 2019, 05:36:29 AM »

Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP :

[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.

Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

Not a great start, opening with the alleged misdeeds of NASA, engineers and scientists, before claiming to do an objective analysis, but never mind.

Quote
With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

Maths is not a ruse or a red herring.  It’s fine to try to explain qualitatively without maths, but you can’t just dismiss the actual maths used by scientists and engineers as “a trap”.

Quote
There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

Really its just different ways of describing the same thing.  Conservation of Momentum is a way of expressing Newton’s laws, one that’s particularly handy for fluid studies.  It’s also the easiest way to think about it, IMO.

Quote
I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.

There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

We’ve been through all this.  Whatever “laws of physics and chemistry” this guy thinks he has do not appear in any of my textbooks.

Quote
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

Free expansion is otherwise known as Joule expansion.  The Joule-Thompson effect follows on from that, describing uses in things like refrigeration systems.

Not a big deal, but the next part is.

Quote
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.

This is a complete misappropriation of the principle of free expansion. 

Firstly, it’s all backwards.  We don’t use the principle of free expansion to prove that expanding gases never do work.  Instead we say that a particular system can be assumed to operate under free expansion (ideal gas law, adiabatic process) to simplify the problem.  As opposed to something like a gas turbine where gases expand and do work.

Secondly, the classic example  describes a closed system.  Gas is released from one chamber into a vacuum chamber however both chambers and the gas are considered the total system.  There is no work done by the system to its surroundings.

That is not how a rocket works.  A rocket has an open system with gases expelled out of it.

Quote
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

Yeah, verified by people who understand how to apply it properly.

The rest is basically the same argument repeated.  Not very concise, is it?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 05:53:05 AM by Unconvinced »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #220 on: July 25, 2019, 05:38:34 AM »
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM ».

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #221 on: July 25, 2019, 06:47:07 AM »
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.
Have you ever seen the exhaust gasses coming out of a rocket engine?  Are you saying that those gasses are not being forced out of the engine?

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
Actually, it's expanding in an enclosed space (the combustion chamber) that restricts the expansion and directs the flow of the combustion gasses.

There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
You will also notice that the free expansion only applies to closed systems (an insulated pressurized chamber connected to an insulated vacuum chamber).  A rocket engine in space is not a closed system, therefore free expansion does not apply.  Also, the simple act of burning the propellant is work, so please stop saying that no work is done.

Also note that, like the rifle example, all of the relevant reactions and force pairings occur within the rocket engine itself.  Once the the exhaust gasses leave the rocket engine, they are no longer of any concern.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #222 on: July 25, 2019, 07:29:15 AM »
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because

    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?

B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?

5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.

The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:

Inside a vacuum tube he attached a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with a blank cartridge, to a rod that turns .
There is no film of the experiment but first hand reports claim that when he fired the gun it spun around four times. Thus Goddard declared his theory experimentally proven.
http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faq.cfm

I claim that his experiment was not a test of rocket thrust in a vacuum for the following reasons:

A. A blank cartridge expels a plug of paper called a wad. The wad is expelled with enough force to kill a person. If a gun propels an object conservation of momentum applies and the gun will recoil. Rockets in space do not shoot bullets, wads or any such solids. They only expel gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_%28cartridge%29
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you-5972313

B. The gun was attached to a rod which was attached to the top (or side) of the vacuum tube. This is not state of a rocket in space which is totally insulated from any other object. Because the gun is attached to a rod it is not a closed system. The gun pushes against the rod (exchanges energy) when fired. In a proper setup the gun would be suspended in zero-gravity or some simulation thereof.

C. Even if he had arranged to fire a gun without expelling a wad, even if he had managed to simulate a gun in zero gravity and not used one attached to a rod, he still had the issue that gas fired from the gun was interacting with the sides of his vacuum tube. If gas fired from the gun pressed against the sides it would create turbulence which means that the gasses leaving to gun barrel wouldn't have a chance to experience free expansion. Space doesn't have "sides" that gas bounces off of. Every molecule goes flying off into the void without interacting with any other. Another way to think about this is that once the area in front of the gun muzzle is no longer a vacuum, free expansion stops.

(The loop at the bottom is so that it doesn't bounce off the bottom but what about preventing the gas from interacting with the sides?)

Goddard's experiment is critically flawed and cannot be used as evidence that a rocket will work in a vacuum yet it was used as the basis for continued funding, research and belief in space rockets.

Goddard's Vacuum Tube
Image
(source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goddard_with_Vacuum_Tube_Device_-_GPN-2000-001338.jpg)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #223 on: July 25, 2019, 08:11:02 AM »
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
Does the gas have mass?  Can mass be accelerated without a force being applied to it?

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

This is a Joule-Thomson free expansion apparatus in a closed system:


This is a rocket engine in a vacuum:


Do they look the same to you?

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
Since 1 and 2 are wrong, so is your conclusion.

4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
Once the liquid propellant is converted to a gas, then the chamber is no longer a strict vacuum, is it?

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
That's why the igniter is located near the fuel and oxidizer injectors at the back of the engine and the de Laval nozzle pinches to restrict the flow of the gasses and build chamber pressure.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
That's why the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are pumped to the rocket engines at a controlled rate.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because


    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?

B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?
The 38 and 77 miles that you cite are altitude, not downrange (horizontal) distances traveled.  If you ever watch a Saturn V (or just about any other orbital rocket) launch, then you should notice that the rocket begins to pitch over shortly after lift off.  This is because the 17,500 mph speed needed is horizontal speed, not vertical.

5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.

The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:

Inside a vacuum tube he attached a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with a blank cartridge, to a rod that turns .
There is no film of the experiment but first hand reports claim that when he fired the gun it spun around four times. Thus Goddard declared his theory experimentally proven.
http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faq.cfm

I claim that his experiment was not a test of rocket thrust in a vacuum for the following reasons:
As has been explained many times before, if the propellant can burn in a vacuum, then it can provide thrust in a vacuum.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #224 on: July 25, 2019, 08:42:05 AM »
Is that stage 3 acceleration stat really meters per hour squared?

That’s the maddest unit I’ve ever seen, and I have to conclude was picked to make a really big number.

Can we have that in something sensible, like G or meters per second squared, please?

Edit:  Probably meant to be miles per hour squared.  Which is still very non standard.  One mile per hour squared means it takes a full hour to increase speed by one mile per hour.  So quoting this way yields enormous numbers. 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 11:05:39 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #225 on: July 25, 2019, 08:47:20 AM »
Well at least do we accept that vacuum of space exists?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #226 on: July 25, 2019, 11:10:56 AM »
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun?

I see an obvious problem- how did  Leonov get into space?

Not by a rocket, I guess?

Or does your version of physics only apply to American rockets?


*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #227 on: July 25, 2019, 01:43:18 PM »
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #228 on: July 25, 2019, 01:49:52 PM »
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.

Who says it would?

The one who tries to discredit proof that the Moon is as far as it is, as big as it is and as solid as it is.

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).

Your "calm, cool and steady" doesn't fit with reality of your harsh words, "liar" accusations and attempts to use "reputation" in lack of facts.
This is not about anyones reputations and "whom would you believe".
The reality speaks for itself.

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

You are using an article from 1966 for comparing lasers from 1962 with lasers from 50s.
Instead of that you should do some more research and compare them with lasers from 70s, after the reflectors were installed.

Diameter of "less than two miles" still has a lot of bumps and dents with variabile local altitudes, so timing of the reflection has too much noise.
That is why reflectors were installed, to use even weaker lasers and detect only the beam reflected from them.
Reflectors have much more defined distance from the center of the Moon than "less than two miles wide" piece of bumpy lunar land.

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :


LOL
Making a mixture and connecting different questions with different answers doesn't seem very honest.
And you are trying to make sane people trust the author of this video? :)

3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.

This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :



If you want it completely deleted, go up there and sweep their footprints from the lunar dust.
Lack of atmosphere there won't make any winds to do it for you. :)

Neither will the final answer to the "who was behind the 9/11?".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you are calling everyone "liars" and "NASA shills" you actually reveal yourself as military shill.
Army gets $600 billion per year ($718 billion for 2020), and NASA just $21.5 billion.
Yet, for you it is not enough, and you are trying to channel those $21 billion to the army too.

If you succeed, and people abandon Space exploration (in favor of what?), then who will survive when the next big asteroid hits the Earth?

Or when we use up all the limited resources and room that we have on this single planet?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 02:47:09 PM 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #229 on: July 25, 2019, 01:57:03 PM »
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #230 on: July 25, 2019, 02:40:01 PM »

A. A blank cartridge expels a plug of paper called a wad. The wad is expelled with enough force to kill a person. If a gun propels an object conservation of momentum applies and the gun will recoil. Rockets in space do not shoot bullets, wads or any such solids. They only expel gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_%28cartridge%29
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you-5972313

OK, but a gas still has mass and by conservation of momentum, the rocket expelling gas will recoil...
I don't see why you have such a problem realising there is no difference between a solid bullet and gas being ejected ...

*

JackBlack

  • 21874
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #231 on: July 25, 2019, 02:51:28 PM »
Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP
If they want to come here and argue, then they can, otherwise I will continue with you, as you are the one in this thread claiming rockets can't work in a vacuum and you refusing to answer a very simple question.

If you think they have a valid argument which directly addresses this very simple question then feel free to provide it, rather than a massive wall of text as I see no point in reading through someone else's wall of text which you will happily disown.

To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context.
Newton's 3rd law applies universally.
If you wish to claim it doesn't apply you need to explain why, providing a proper justification rather than just misquoting things.

So again, what force is accelerating the gas?
What body is applying this force?


Stop trying to hide from the refutations of your arguments by jumping between loads of different topics.

If you want to move on from the rockets, either explain what force is accelerating the gas out of the rocket, or admit that rockets can work in space.
Stop bringing up loads of different topics.

The fact that you need to repeatedly avoid this very simple question is very telling.

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.
Yes, 3 main kinds:
1 - Where the brightness, contrast or colour has been altered. - No fakery here unless they are claiming that is how it was.
2 - stitching images together to make panoramas. - No fakery here unless they claim it was taken as a single image.
3 - Conspiracy nuts intentionally manipulating photos to pretend there is a problem. - Very significant fakery here, but not on the part on NASA, on the part of those lying and pretending NASA never went to the moon.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #232 on: July 25, 2019, 03:30:32 PM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
Sure, "No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth."
BUT retroreflectors were necessary to achieve the current precision in Earth-moon distance.

Quote from: cikljamas
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966, 'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy, Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."
Have you looked at the precision of the measurements before and after retro-reflectors were installed on the moon?
Read: Lunar Laser Ranging by James E. Faller JILA, University of Colorado and NIST, and Institute for Gravitational Research, University of Glasgow!
Look at the precision before and after the retroreflectors were placed:
Quote
In the next two and a half centuries astronomers used measurements of optical parallax and simultaneous observations of stellar occultations to reduce the uncertainty in the Earth-Moon distance to about 2 miles.
Beginning in 1957, conventional radar techniques were used to determine the Moon’s distance from the Earth to within 0.7 mile.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It was in May of 1962 that a group from MIT reported a weak photon echo from a pulsed laser that was fired at the Moon—which they published with the clever title: “Project Lunar See.”
Finally, three years later in 1965, a Russian group used a 104-inch (2.6-meter) telescope to transmit and detect pulses of 50-nanosecond duration produced by a Q-switched (short pulse) ruby laser. This experiment achieved enough accuracy to improve our knowledge of the Earth-Moon distance to about 180 m. At this accuracy, lunar topology was beginning to spread in time the reflected pulse.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On August 3, the Goddard laser system was operated successfully for nearly two hours and achieved a range accuracy of 6 meters.
. . .
The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment which began with the July 20th placing of the array of optical corner cubes on the surface of the Moon (Fig. 6) by the Apollo 11 astronauts has made possible a dramatic change in our ability to measure the distance between the Earth and its moon—initially, with an accuracy of some tens of centimeters; and today, four additional retroreflector packages and 40 years later, with an accuracy of millimeters!

Quote from: cikljamas
1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :

There is nothing of any merit in that to demonstrate that "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
All it shows is the ignorance of your and your so called "expert"!
This might show what even radio amateurs can do: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013.

And you seem to have forgotten this!
Flat Earth General / Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « on: July 24, 2019, 10:59:06 PM »



Quote from: cikljamas
3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.
Incorrect! Only in the minds of conspiritards like yourself!

Quote from: cikljamas
This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :

Really?What a total waste of time!
You claim that video is "one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are" but I find absolutely nothing in that video relevant to NASA.

NASA happens to be the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and that's it! 
So please enlighten us how you link NASA into that video!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #233 on: July 25, 2019, 04:21:16 PM »
Cikljamas, in addressing the 2nd part of the topic, I'm going to employ the KISS principle in explaining how rockets can and do fly in a vacuum.

To begin, a rocket moves forward because burning gases are ejected at high speed behind it. If an engine supplies a constant force, the accelaration of the rocket will increase because the total mass of the rocket decreases as fuel and oxygen are burnt.

Have you noticed how much faster an inflated balloon goes at the end of it's journey than when you first let it go? What pushes the balloon around the room is the air you blew into it, escaping.

Many people think rockets only work if they have something to push against. Not true. They work in space as the momentum of the exhaust gases is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the gain in momentum of the rocket.

In short, rockets fly in space due to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produced an equal and opposite reaction.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #234 on: July 25, 2019, 05:10:03 PM »
A little addition on Geocentrism and Robert Sungenis for those interested.

On the general topic: Geocentrism Debunked and on  Robert Sungenis: Incompetent in Physics.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #235 on: July 25, 2019, 07:12:35 PM »
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013.

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #236 on: July 25, 2019, 07:26:57 PM »
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013.

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.

These days for EME it's mostly digital modes,  QRA64D JT4 and such  see https://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html  for more details if you are interested.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #237 on: July 25, 2019, 08:18:20 PM »
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
No, it is not "the principle of free expansion".
Joule expansion or free expansion has nothing to do worth forces and does not preclude forces due the the changed position of the centre-of-gravity of the gas.
     

Upper: before expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the left box.




Lower: after expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the combined boxes.
Hence the whole system must move left because the CoG of an isolated system
cannot be changed by internal action.


Quote from: cikljamas
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
Totally untrue! The tonnes of burnt fuel become another system when they have felt the engine.

Quote from: cikljamas
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
Irrelevant because your 1. and 2. are not valid

Quote from: cikljamas
4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
Your understanding is incorrect. A liquid will evaporate in a vacuum but for some liquids that might take a long time.

Quote from: cikljamas
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion.
Combustion in a rocket engine is in the combustion chamber and that is isolated from the vacuum by a choked converging-diverging (de Laval) nozzle.

So your claim is quite incorrect!

Quote from: cikljamas
When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
What on earth are you talking about? The fuel and oxidiser are fed at controlled rates by massive turbine driven fuel pumps.

Quote from: cikljamas
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
What sort of rubbish is that? The fuel pumps control the rate of fuel flow.

Quote from: cikljamas
Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2
Try again! You miles are miles of altitude not distance travelled so so calculations are meaningless!
Maybe you should get your data right from  the "horse's mouth" and read "TITLE APOLLO / SATURN V POST FLIGHT TRAJECTORY - AS - 505".

Quote from: cikljamas
Questions:
A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
It doesn't "slow down between stages 1 and 2"!


Quote from: cikljamas
    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?


B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?
It doesn't "accelerate at such a tremendous rate"!

Note that the acceleration never exceeds about 36 m/s2.

Quote from: cikljamas
5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.
And you certainly have not proved Robert Goddard wrong, have you? ;D

Quote from: cikljamas
]
The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:
<< I can't be bothered with more of your twaddle!  >>
I don't put much weight in the words of someone who puts "Photoshopped" images in his videos that try to prove that NASA lies!

You're not very knowledgeable about these rockets are you Mr Cikljamas?

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #238 on: July 25, 2019, 09:39:56 PM »
Here's another way to think of it:

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #239 on: July 25, 2019, 09:53:29 PM »
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013.

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.

These days for EME it's mostly digital modes,  QRA64D JT4 and such  see https://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html  for more details if you are interested.

Like I said, the digital modes came along mostly after my time. It's amazing that they could and can do that, and those antennas are crazy. But the technical details would go right over my head. I was a CW man, and I kind of felt it was cheating when a few guys programmed their Radio Shack Color Computers to send code. Of course, the old landline telegraphers probably thought my iambic keyer was cheating. I had a bug, and I could use it, but only the landline men wanted to hear it. Once it was just typing on a keyboard and reading the reply on your screen it didn't even seem like ham radio to me.

Sorry for the digression. I haven't been on ham radio in 25 years. Still keep my license current. Not really sure why. Nostalgia for my callsign I guess, and not wanting to lose it and see it re-assigned to someone else.