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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 393400 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3030 on: January 18, 2020, 12:32:22 AM »
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.

How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
I'm trying to figure out how it's all lost on you.

You have to be doing this on purpose, surely.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3031 on: January 18, 2020, 12:37:22 AM »

Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite
I never wrote that so how did you manage to quote it from that time?


« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 12:39:17 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3032 on: January 18, 2020, 12:44:23 AM »
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite

You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,
 pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.

How so? Do explain.

Apologies. That was Stash. This quoting system is not the easiest to use.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3033 on: January 18, 2020, 12:46:34 AM »
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.

If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.

If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.

Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.

I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.

How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
I'm trying to figure out how it's all lost on you.

You have to be doing this on purpose, surely.

You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.

However, at the end of the day;

- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.

None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.

How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3034 on: January 18, 2020, 12:59:49 AM »
You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.

However, at the end of the day;

- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.
I do but it doesn't suit people like yourself who relies on bringing up off the shelf servings to push out. This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff.

Quote from: Stash
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.
This is a different matter but feel free to make a topic on it.

Quote from: Stash
None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.
I certainly don;t hide behind anything. I merely explain my stuff to people like you who actually do hide behind the off the shelf answers in books and such like, then peek over to view the next resistance to the mainstream view, find the relevant answer and sling it out there as if you thought of it yourself.
If you want to play insults then fine but remember who the parrot is.
I can think for myself.

Quote from: Stash
How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.
Once you show me a diagram that you do yourself showing exactly how your rocket works, making sure you point to exactly what's happening to make it move as we are told and not simply put up a copy and paste of a diagram that shows absolutely nothing.

If you can do that I absolutely promise I'll put up a diagram...in fact diagrams showing exactly what's really happening with thee rockets and what wouldn't happen in so called space.

I'm willing to do all that and I'll do it on some drawing paper with a pencil and maybe coloured pencils and even explain it all in writing, then get my wife to take a picture of it so I can put it into the forum.

How's that?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3035 on: January 18, 2020, 01:02:18 AM »
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.

The numbers don't add up.

I believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.

I just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.

Well, I'm going to read this article then come back if I understood it and not before.

https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 01:23:34 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3036 on: January 18, 2020, 01:22:07 AM »
You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.

However, at the end of the day;

- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.

I do but it doesn't suit people like yourself who relies on bringing up off the shelf servings to push out. This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff.


Oh just stop with the silliness. We all know you don't have any of that, so stop pretending you do. You simply deflect constantly with things like, "This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff."  We all 'grasp' it. But your 'it' doesn't make any sense in the real world.

Quote from: Stash
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.
This is a different matter but feel free to make a topic on it.

Just merely bringing up your hypocrisy when it comes to only believing that which you can experience for yourself. Yet you have a massive reality prohibitive belief system that teeters on many things you have never personally witnessed/experienced. So let's not use that argument again.

Quote from: Stash
None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.
I certainly don;t hide behind anything. I merely explain my stuff to people like you who actually do hide behind the off the shelf answers in books and such like, then peek over to view the next resistance to the mainstream view, find the relevant answer and sling it out there as if you thought of it yourself.
If you want to play insults then fine but remember who the parrot is.
I can think for myself.

Arrogant much?

Quote from: Stash
How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.
Once you show me a diagram that you do yourself showing exactly how your rocket works, making sure you point to exactly what's happening to make it move as we are told and not simply put up a copy and paste of a diagram that shows absolutely nothing.

If you can do that I absolutely promise I'll put up a diagram...in fact diagrams showing exactly what's really happening with thee rockets and what wouldn't happen in so called space.

I'm willing to do all that and I'll do it on some drawing paper with a pencil and maybe coloured pencils and even explain it all in writing, then get my wife to take a picture of it so I can put it into the forum.

How's that?

That would be great. There's a 100 pages of diagrams for you to pick from. They are all the same. There are 100 pages of descriptions of exactly how a rocket works. They are all the same. So far, there's not one from you showing how a rocket works. So let's see a drawing.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3037 on: January 18, 2020, 01:44:47 AM »
"It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate."
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Answer D

This is the official explanation of how rockets can move in space.

"...they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction..."

This is not an explanation. If air is required for movement or flight on earth, it has not been explained here as to why it is no longer required in space.

In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight, a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required. But it is not explained as to why this is.

My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.

It's the emperor's new clothes.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 02:00:46 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3038 on: January 18, 2020, 01:56:26 AM »
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.
I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.

Quote from: HattyFatner
The numbers don't add up.
What numbers don't add up?

Quote from: HattyFatner
I believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.
You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.

Quote from: HattyFatner
I just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.
No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.

It might be a bit hard videoing a rocket "going all the way into space" from the ground but this one is from a camera on the rocket from launch to orbit:

Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit

I guess you'll justifying ridicule it but ridicule is a very weak argument.

And here's a Shuttle launch seen from a commercial aircraft:

Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane by Neil Monday

That Shuttle gets to a far higher height than that aircraft.

Nobody in their right mind could call that a "big tin filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions."

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3039 on: January 18, 2020, 02:05:10 AM »
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.
I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.

Quote from: HattyFatner
The numbers don't add up.
What numbers don't add up?

Quote from: HattyFatner
I believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.
You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.

Quote from: HattyFatner
I just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.
No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.

It might be a bit hard videoing a rocket "going all the way into space" from the ground but this one is from a camera on the rocket from launch to orbit:

Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit

I guess you'll justifying ridicule it but ridicule is a very weak argument.

And here's a Shuttle launch seen from a commercial aircraft:

Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane by Neil Monday

That Shuttle gets to a far higher height than that aircraft.

Nobody in their right mind could call that a "big tin filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions."

I wouldn't ridicule something, only cast doubt on it's authenticity based on information which run's counter to the narrative put forward by space agencies.

I'm going to find some numbers that don't add up. This could take some time. In the meantime, maybe you could explain why air is not needed for propulsion in space which is what I think everyone is trying to understand.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3040 on: January 18, 2020, 02:13:54 AM »
In order for combustion to occur, there must be oxygen.
You mean like that provided by the tank often full of liquid oxygen?

The difference in air pressure is what would cause perpendicular momentum in a foreign object. Without air, there cannot be combustion or a difference in air pressure.
You mean like the large difference in pressure between the engine of the rocket and the vacuum of space?

You don't need air in the sense of an atmosphere. You need gas in the sense of the rocket fuel and oxidant.

An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air.
No, an oxidant is something which causes oxidation to occur. This is a chemical process where electron are lost from one species (the species being oxidised) and gained by another species (the species being reduced, the oxidising agent).

Oxygen is a common oxidant, which makes no sense under your definition, as it is oxygen, it doesn't create it.
An even more fun one is fluorine, which is a more powerful oxidant that oxygen.

Because if rockets are not real, there is no proof for a globular earth or even space and therefore gravity, on which all the physical sciences are based upon.
Wrong, and all counts.
Even without rockets, there is still plenty of proof for a round Earth. Earth was known to be round thousands of years ago.
The massive distance between objects would demand some kind of space between them, and the fact that objects (like the moon) can stay in orbit for so long, necessitates no significant friction.
Gravity was proven on Earth, long before rockets existed.
And plenty of science doesn't care about the shape of Earth, space or gravity.

For example, what part of that is required to know how things burn?

You mean 1 atmosphere which is sea level air pressure. If you are saying there is less air pressure the farther up you travel then air pressure will decrease steadily until you leave the atmosphere in which there is no air pressure so no possibility of thrust.
You have already admitted a gradient is required. i.e. a difference in pressure.
If you have a pressure greater than 1 atm, then the higher up you go, the more thrust you get.

The guy with the medicine ball is just jerking his body a bit - the ball is not in effect at all.
No, the ball is crucial, without it, he won't move much at all.
You can even try this yourself. Try it with no ball, then with balls of various weight.
Then try it with those same balls, but keeping a hold of them.

What you are seeing is the counter motion on an axis (his shoulder) of a dense object moving from being close to his chest to being moved to away from his chest then released. The release does not generate thrust, but the movement of the dense object at speed via his arm muscles, repositioned the center of his body & trolley slightly, causing it to move a few inches backwards.
Yes, it is the acceleration of that object which requires a force and thus an equal and opposite force.
The release itself doesn't cause it.
However, if it wasn't released then it would require another acceleration to stop it moving, which stops the motion.

I just remembered that 'mass' is a meaningless term that relies on gravity for explanation which is as far as I'm concerned, an unproven quantity. The actual term I should have used is 'weight'.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
Weight is the force acting on a mass due to the very real phenomenon of gravity.
Mass does not rely upon gravity at all.

"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
No, it is quite logical and meaningful, at least the version without your typos.
It is accelerated for the same reason airplanes accelerate the air. Doing so requires a force and demands a reactionary force which is used to accelerate the rocket.

Your ideas about it sitting on a cusion of air have been refuted countless times in this thread.
Perhaps you can meet the challenge where all your budies failed.

Tell us what force acts on the gas to accelerate it so it can leave the rocket.
Then also tell us what the reactionary force to this is.

Then see if you can tell us what accelerates the rocket, specifically what is providing the force to the rocket.

Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,  pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.
How?
It is open at one end. That means the gas isn't pushing on that section of the exit point.
Your claim only makes sense for a closed container, not one with one end open.
With one end open there is an unbalanced force, which accelerates the rocket, without any need for the atmosphere.

That's my best guess.
Perhaps you should stop guessing then?

By the same absence of reasoning one would "conclude" that electric motors are impossible.

Thermodynamics in no way indicates rockets are impossible.

The numbers don't add up.
Care to provide the numbers and show how they don't add up?

If air is required for movement or flight on earth
And that is a MASSIVE if.
In reality, it is not needed.

It has been repeatedly asserted, because if people like you admitted it wasn't needed on Earth it would raise the question of why it is needed in space; but no one has ever been able to demonstrate it.

The best they have been able to show is that rockets need gas, such as that from the burning fuel and oxygen, not the atmosphere.

In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight

a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required.
Technically it is still there in space.
In front of the craft you have effectively 0 pressure.
In the engine/nozzle, you have the high pressure of the burning fuel/oxygen mixture.
Why can't that accelerate the rocket?

My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand them has no bearing on others.
They are extremely simple and easy to understand.
The first indicates that objects will continue with whatever motion they have and that you need to do something (i.e. apply a force) to change it.
The second indicates that this force is proportional to the mass times the acceleration, or perhaps more easily understood as:
If you apply a greater force to the same object it will accelerate at a faster rate. If you apply the same force to a more massive object (i.e. one with more mass) it will accelerate slower.
The third law indicates that if you apply a force to something, it applies a force back.

Again, they are very easy to understand.
Just what do you find difficult?

But again, perhaps you can address the issue plaguing the FEers (and other reality deniers) in this thread?

You have a tube of compressed gas in a vacuum, one end is opened.
What will happen?
Will it all just sit there doing nothing, with compressed gas contained in an open container?
Or will the gas leave? If it leaves, that means it needs to accelerate. That means it needs a force and something to push against to provide a reactionary force to.
The only object available is the tube, which means that it will push against the tube.
That means the tube will accelerate.
That means rockets will work in a vacuum.

Or from using pressure:
You have pressurised gas in the tube. On the side walls you have an equal pressure pushing in each direction and thus no net force.
But you have one end having pressure applied while the other end is missing so no pressure is applied.
This results in a net force on the object.
Why wouldn't this accelerate the object?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 02:15:44 AM by JackBlack »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3041 on: January 18, 2020, 02:29:01 AM »
OK Jack Black.

That's about 3 hours of reading and answering to tie me up for a good day. I need to contact my central heating company as there is a problem first though. Then I need to make calculations for someone else. Then I will set about trying to answer all your questions and rebutals to rebuts I never made like you are suggesting I don't think you can liquify oxygen or extract it.

But I ask you, if you are carrying apparatus that can use an oxydizing agent to extract that oxygen like substance in order to create combustion. How is that more efficient than simply carrying the oxygen-like material in the first instance?

Why is it more weight efficient to extract it within the craft itself from some material and can you reveal the material the oxygen-like substance is being extracted from?

PS. There were 3 cuts in that video for some reason.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 02:38:12 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3042 on: January 18, 2020, 02:29:28 AM »
Inertia is how difficult it is to change an objects velocity?
Make up your minds.
We aren't the ones who need to make up our minds.
That is what inertia is and always has been.
You misunderstanding people doesn't mean we haven't made up our minds.
There are several ways to express basically the same thing.

You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.
And now you are hiding behind your projection of you hiding. Good job.
We have already provided what you have asked for, while you have repeatedly failed to do so or just refused.
If you would like to see it, just go back through the thread.

Now again, quit with the pathetic distractions and tell us what is accelerating the gas.
What is the gas pushing against?

Once you have made up your mind on that, tell us what is accelerating the rocket, specifically what is in contact with it which is providing a force to accelerate it.

It'll tell me nothing about inertia.
My own reactionary force against my kick will tell me that one ball is much more dense than the other
No, it tells you one is harder to move, i.e. has more inertia.

We have been over this countless times before. The atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
You are appealing to the inertia of the atmosphere.
Why does the atmosphere "slosh"?

Resistance is friction. Vibration is friction. If you call resistance inertia then you call friction the same.
No, they are fundamentally different.
Inertia is resistance to change in motion.
Friction is resistance to relative motion.
They are vastly different.

The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
Or if they just magically stopped pushing on it.
The only way for the gauge to read 0 is if nothing is pushing on it.

Now I know you want to lie about definitions and pretend that that is magically not a positive pressure because it is less than what it was before, but to everyone else, it is.

Now again, quit with the pathetic distractions and deal with the issue that has been plaguing your side since before you joined this thread.
WHAT IS THE GAS PUSHING OFF TO ACCELERATE OUT OF THE ROCKET?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3043 on: January 18, 2020, 02:32:11 AM »
What does that mean? Rockets do not need generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.

I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.

A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
I did not write "...accelerate the burn propellent". Try reading what is written.
But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
What does that mean? Rockets do not need to generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.

I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.

A typical rocket engine like the SpaceX Merlin 1D  burns about 329 kg per sec of propellant and accelerates it to about 2570 m/s.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
You tell me what force is needed to accelerate a mass of 329 kg from zero to 2570 m/s in one second.

Quote from: HattyFatner
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
Thermodynamics says nothing of the sort!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3044 on: January 18, 2020, 02:38:39 AM »
That's about 3 hours of reading and answering to tie me up for a good day.
And all it was was responding to your nonsense.

If defending all your nonsense is too hard, perhaps just focus on the one key issue which shows your side cannot be correct.

What accelerates the gas (i.e. the compressed gas for a cold gas thruster or the burnt/burning fuel-oxygen mix or the like) out of the rocket?

I don't think you can liquify oxygen or extract it.
Really?
You want to go down that route?
Just what would magically prevent it?
Do you accept that you can liquefy water vapour?
What about nitrogen?

But I ask you, if you are carrying apparatus that can extract an oxydent to extract that oxygen like substance in order to create combustion. How is that more efficient than simply carrying the oxygen-like material in the first instance?
Liquid oxygen isn't being used to extract oxygen, it IS oxygen.
Liquid oxygen is far more dense than gaseous oxygen, and thus takes up less space.
That means the tank weighs less.
It isn't extracting it from something, it is simply storing it in a more compact form.

As a simple example, lets say you have a tank which holds 1000 L of liquid oxygen.
If instead of it being liquid, you wanted to hold pure gaseous oxygen at 20 C and atmospheric pressure, you would need a tank which is ~860 000 L, or 860 times the size.
Assuming you were just scaling it, that means the tank would have to weigh ~90 times what you would need for liquid oxygen.

But otherwise, like I said, some oxidants are better than oxygen.

If you would like another example, consider gunpowder. That has an oxidant in it so it can burn a lot faster and not need access to air.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3045 on: January 18, 2020, 02:40:51 AM »
I wouldn't ridicule something, only cast doubt on it's authenticity based on information which run's counter to the narrative put forward by space agencies.
The second video was taken by a passenger on a common airliner so surely he'd be unbiased.

But you seem to be the one rejecting anything the doesn't fit with your narrative.

Quote from: HattyFatner
I'm going to find some numbers that don't add up.
I would assume that you wouldn't know what "numbers . . .  don't add up" before marking that claim!

Quote from: HattyFatner
In the meantime, maybe you could explain why air is not needed for propulsion in space which is what I think everyone is trying to understand.
I already did and have said much the same in much more detail earlier in the thread.

Look, if you jump onto the end of a thread you can hardly expect everyone to repeat what they've written just for you.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3046 on: January 18, 2020, 02:53:03 AM »
If the internet can only say "it pushed out the fuel" and not saying against what the fuel is pushing, then it is clear you are guessing or using vague psuedo science and just calling me names.

Already people are calling me names, taking things I said out of context and putting words in my mouth.

This isn't me being defensive. It's right up there for the world to read.

If you think you are doing your side of the argument justice then bravo to you.

I'm now going to actually do some research and you can pick teeny tiny holes in every little thing and ignore the key point of how something can push itself in a vacuum.

I don't think anyone reading this is going to view your argument favourably and the zealousness with which you are attacking me is not reflective of a clear conscience or confidence of your convictions.

In short. If your motive is to educate me, it is much closer to an attack on my intelligence and somehow possibly my character as well. Hardly taking the high ground are you?

I now have about 20 defences to make and I will have to go and read this whole 100 page thread because it is lazy of me not to do so or expect you to post a simple explanation because it is too convoluted or complicated to explain in any kind of truncated form.

Classic filibustering.

Does this look real to you?



Also re. this official video. If they are in orbit, how is there a microphone attached to the hull and how did it survive the journey through the stratosphere at thousands of miles an hour and how is it picking up sound within the vacuum of space? ...ok I see it is not supposed to have not left the atmosphere but there is a cut at 35:20.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 03:18:42 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3047 on: January 18, 2020, 03:39:45 AM »
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.
I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.

Quote from: HattyFatner
The numbers don't add up.
What numbers don't add up?

Quote from: HattyFatner
I believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.
You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.

Quote from: HattyFatner
I just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.
No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.

It might be a bit hard videoing a rocket "going all the way into space" from the ground but this one is from a camera on the rocket from launch to orbit:

Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit

I guess you'll justifying ridicule it but ridicule is a very weak argument.

And here's a Shuttle launch seen from a commercial aircraft:

Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane by Neil Monday

That Shuttle gets to a far higher height than that aircraft.

Nobody in their right mind could call that a "big tin filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions."

Thing is. How is it efficient to have such a fiery burning fuel that is directed out to the side and billowing out in such a way? This doesn't look at all like the jet fighters I see which use the same technique. They burn almost invisible. I'm only guessing as I'm not a rocket science but that video looks pretty phoney. Why can't I see it's contrails or the launch pad? It's trajectory is precisely at the angle as to obscure the launch pad for the whole 10 minute video.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to point a camera at the sky for a period longer than 10 minutes to put my mind at rest re. the entire world system of science and education.

It's also pretty bad video quality considering it was filmed in 2017. It looks like my logitech webcam which cost £5.

The film from the plane looks nice but I am aware of the miracle of compositing and special effects so it's possible it is a couple of actors and an afternoon in After Effects.

The original moon landing footage is pretty much on par with the filmic techniques of the time, too.

Sorry if I'm off topic. I'm just putting off reading 3000+ comments to find out how rockets in space work which I missed... :(
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 03:47:42 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3048 on: January 18, 2020, 04:10:57 AM »
"It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate."
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Answer D

This is the official explanation of how rockets can move in space.

"...they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction..."

This is not an explanation. If air is required for movement or flight on earth, it has not been explained here as to why it is no longer required in space.

In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight, a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required. But it is not explained as to why this is.

My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.

It's the emperor's new clothes.
Pretty much sums it up.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3049 on: January 18, 2020, 04:24:22 AM »
Thing is. How is it efficient to have such a fiery burning fuel that is directed out to the side and billowing out in such a way?
The rocket engines has to go somewhere when it's close to the ground and it is direct out each into huge flame trenches, as in:
Quote from: Michel Mephit

LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011

The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench.  This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch.  The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.

And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected to:

STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01

Quote from: HattyFatner
This doesn't look at all like the jet fighters I see which use the same technique. They burn almost invisible. I'm only guessing as I'm not a rocket science but that video looks pretty phoney. Why can't I see it's contrails or the launch pad? It's trajectory is precisely at the angle as to obscure the launch pad for the whole 10 minute video.
You want everything! If the video showed both the rocket and the launch pad the rocket would be so small tou'd hardly see it!

Here is what the exhaust stream looks like after the rocket has left the ground.

Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.

Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.

Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:

See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.

Quote from: HattyFatner
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to point a camera at the sky for a period longer than 10 minutes to put my mind at rest
But by the time the rocket is in space it is usually a few hundred kilometres downrange:


Quote from: HattyFatner
re. the entire world system of science and education.
NASA, SpaceX and other agencies publish voluminous information. If you choose to deny what's what can they do.

If you are dissatisfied with every video stop bitching go and watch a few launches youself! Thousands of others do.

I'll ignore the rest as it unworthy of comment!

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3050 on: January 18, 2020, 04:32:42 AM »
"It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate."
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Answer D

This is the official explanation of how rockets can move in space.

"...they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction..."

This is not an explanation. If air is required for movement or flight on earth, it has not been explained here as to why it is no longer required in space.

In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight, a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required. But it is not explained as to why this is.

My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.

It's the emperor's new clothes.

Air isn’t required for flight or movement on earth.  It’s just much much easier and cheaper to use it, both as a medium to generate lift and as a free supply of oxygen.

In space, that’s not an option, so rockets have to carry their own.

Rockets are big, expensive and noisy, with a pretty huge carbon footprint.  Not really suitable for transporting millions of passengers per day.

PS.  Please don’t say that Thermodynamics states something, unless it really does.  It’s a real subject, not whatever you want it to be.  If you want to use it in an argument, find out how it actually works first.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3051 on: January 18, 2020, 04:38:52 AM »
PS.  Please don’t say that Thermodynamics states something, unless it really does.  It’s a real subject, not whatever you want it to be.  If you want to use it in an argument, find out how it actually works first.

It was a discipline invented to explore the possibilities of the steam engine and there are a few different kinds. I don't pretend to understand everything there is to know but my outline earlier is accurate.

It is about the transfer of heat through matter calculated on the pretext of all things being equal or balancing out to a inert state eventually.

The Stirling engine is a prime example of thermodynamics put into application. My favourite ever invention.

It's used in aerodynamics to calculate thrust via the transfer of heat through the air and resulting air pressures. Also in meteorology. It has a wiki article or two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Classical_thermodynamics
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3052 on: January 18, 2020, 05:03:20 AM »
If the internet can only say "it pushed out the fuel" and not saying against what the fuel is pushing
The fuel is pushing against the rocket.
That is quite simple.
It is like the medicine ball example, where the person was pushing against the ball. It doesn't matter what the ball pushes against other than the person.

Already people are calling me names, taking things I said out of context and putting words in my mouth.
Just what is being taken out of context? Who is calling you names?

You seem to just be playing the victim to avoid defending your claims, or dealing with the key issues which show rockets MUST work in a vacuum.

I'm now going to actually do some research and you can pick teeny tiny holes in every little thing and ignore the key point of how something can push itself in a vacuum.
And now you are projecting.
We are not the ones ignoring how an object can "push itself" in a vacuum.

The rocket isn't pushing itself. It is burning fuel to create very high pressure gas which pushes it.
That gas doesn't push itself forwards with the rocket. It goes one way and the rocket goes the other.
Just like the medicine ball.

Meanwhile, I am yet to find a someone who rejects rockets like you who can explain how the gas manages to leave in the first place.

I now have about 20 defences to make and I will have to go and read this whole 100 page thread because it is lazy of me not to do so or expect you to post a simple explanation because it is too convoluted or complicated to explain in any kind of truncated form.
Except I provided a simple explanation, as have others, which you just dismissed or brought up pure nonsense to attack it, which was then refuted.

Don't act like it hasn't been provided. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to actually bother reading what people post for you, don't expect them to do it repeatedly.

Again, there are a few simple ways.
The rocket generates high pressure gas by burning the fuel.
This acts outwards in all directions, pushing on the rocket. However the force on the rocket is unbalanced as it has a large opening in it.
This results in it providing a net force to the rocket which accelerates it.

Alternatively, the rocket pushes the exhaust away at a high velocity which pushes the rocket away. Simple action-reaction.

Again, if you want to claim they can't work, then either tell me the gas will remain trapped inside an open container exposed to vacuum, or explain how that gas is accelerated so it can leave the rocket. The only thing it can interact with to push off is the rocket.

Thing is. How is it efficient to have such a fiery burning fuel that is directed out to the side and billowing out in such a way?
Where is it directed out the sides?
Do you mean on the ground at launch, where the ground directs it? If so, it has left the rocket then and doesn't matter.
If you mean at high altitude where once it leaves it bulges out, the reason it ends up not just going straight out is the large range of pressures that the rocket goes through.
It is very difficult to have a single nozzle work for all altitudes perfectly, so some efficiency is lost to make it so loads of stages aren't needed.

This doesn't look at all like the jet fighters I see which use the same technique.
Jet's use a fundamentally different technique and have a much smaller pressure range to deal with.


Pretty much sums it up.
Yes, it does. You guys get a simple explanation, and then blatantly misrepresent it to pretend it is completely wrong, complete with setting up pathetic strawmen to attack.

Figured out what accelerates the gas yet, i.e. what it pushes off?
Or what actually pushes on the rocket?

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3053 on: January 18, 2020, 05:10:28 AM »
If you are dissatisfied with every video stop bitching go and watch a few launches youself! Thousands of others do.

I'm still waiting just for a continuous video of going from launch pad to turn round and look at the whole world without any cuts. Everyone is. I would have thought this would be simple given their funding.

Please find that video for me.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3054 on: January 18, 2020, 05:23:39 AM »
PS.  Please don’t say that Thermodynamics states something, unless it really does.  It’s a real subject, not whatever you want it to be.  If you want to use it in an argument, find out how it actually works first.

It was a discipline invented to explore the possibilities of the steam engine and there are a few different kinds. I don't pretend to understand everything there is to know but my outline earlier is accurate.

It is about the transfer of heat through matter calculated on the pretext of all things being equal or balancing out to a inert state eventually.

The Stirling engine is a prime example of thermodynamics put into application. My favourite ever invention.

It's used in aerodynamics to calculate thrust via the transfer of heat through the air and resulting air pressures. Also in meteorology. It has a wiki article or two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Classical_thermodynamics

The Sterling engine is irrelevant to your claim.  You said:

Quote
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.

Citation needed.  Please provide a reputable source, or admit you just made that up.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3055 on: January 18, 2020, 05:27:16 AM »
Quote
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.

Citation needed.  Please provide a reputable source, or admit you just made that up.

When I refer to thermodynamics I'm talking about the science of heat transfer and how the law of motion in terms of thrust and motion in the context of air flight necessitate an atmosphere of gas and would not apply within a vacuum which would require a different branch of science to create a workable scientific model.

Did that make sense to you?

There's probably something in here...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine

"An  engine component  model  is  established  by  means  of the  gas flow path of the engine. "

That means you can't fly without gas. In thermodynamics at least.

Here is a audio-visual-representation of space flight.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 05:43:22 AM by HattyFatner »
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3056 on: January 18, 2020, 05:45:53 AM »
Quote
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.

Citation needed.  Please provide a reputable source, or admit you just made that up.

When I refer to thermodynamics I'm talking about the science of heat transfer and how the law of motion in terms of thrust and motion in the context of air flight necessitate an atmosphere of gas and would not apply within a vacuum which would require a different branch of science to create a workable scientific model.

Did that make sense to you?

There's probably something in here...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine

“In the context of air flight”?

Well, we’re not talking about air flight are we?  We’re talking about space flight.

There’s plenty of heat transfer going on in a rocket engine and exhaust.  Lots and lots of heat.

Is that not thermodynamics?

Here’s a site explaining some rocket thermodynamics:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm

Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel an object in space.  I’ve never seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 05:53:45 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3057 on: January 18, 2020, 05:48:18 AM »
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel and object in space.  I’ve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).

Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3058 on: January 18, 2020, 06:14:35 AM »
Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.

An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.

But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
An oxidant does not create oxygen.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3059 on: January 18, 2020, 06:30:35 AM »
Here’s a site explaining some rocket thermodynamics:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm

Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel an object in space.  I’ve never seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).

Well I read the whole article and it didn't touch upon flight within a vacuum. It was just a series of tables for formulating temperatures and such for various fuel combinations.

The last  update was in 2017 "November-2017:  Deleted Moon Landing Hoax section."

Which is a pity because that sounds interesting, especially coming from a rocket scientist. Although I wasn't able to find what his background actually was.

He has got lots of awards though... But nothing about a gas free environment flight model sadly.
A theory is not a fact. An insult is not an argument.