You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.
No, he explained issues with your "analogy" because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Meanwhile, all you seem to be is dodge, because you can see what the end result would be. If you don't dodge, you would be admitting rockets work in a vacuum.
I seem to see all that with you people.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.
Again, you are projecting your own inadequacies onto others. It is the only way for you to cling to your fantasy.
We have provided you with plenty of diagrams, which can actually explain what is being discussed and which you have been unable to find a single issue with.
Meanwhile, you have repeatedly refused to draw a diagram which can actually explain it.
Stop telling us to draw a diagram and draw your own.
Again, stop with the pathetic distractions.
Clearly explain how the gas accelerates from the rocket, including in a vacuum.
This is easiest to do by drawing a diagram showing the forces acting on the gas and the reactionary forces.
Clearly identify what the gas is pushing against.
Then once you have done that, do the same for the rocket (unless doing it for the gas did it for the rocket...).
Again, until you do that, you have literally nothing to back up your fantasy and the rational conclusion remains that rockets work in a vacuum as it has been clearly explained how they do, with you being completely unable to show any problem with it, nor provide an alternative.