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

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.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 09:39:56 PM

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.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

And it's very like the second answer in:

Physics Stack Exchange: Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.

And goes on with nice diagrams.

Quote from: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 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?

Quote from: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM

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).

Quote from: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM

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."

Quote from: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM

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 :

Quote from: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM

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 :

So where's the actual evidence that the moon landings are a hoax?

What you are doing repeating and posting the usual conjecture based on ill informed opinion along the lines of 'doesn't look right, 'seems funny',
'they didn't have computers on board fallacy', 'flag waving in the breeze fallacy', 'could never replicate the Saturn V fallacy', 'I could never imagine that happening fallacy', etc., etc., All of which is based upon lack of knowledge and a misunderstanding of the science.

In the past, although I didn't doubt the moon landing, I myself thought some of the questioning seemed interesting so I looked in to them. And in each and every case, the answer was obvious. The supposed flag waving in the breeze for instance. Nah, it's from the initial movement by the astronauts.

Of course there are those who know it's not a hoax but cash in on it for profit from the gullible.

But where's the actual evidence of a hoax? In this age of Wikileaks, hacking, cybercrime, whistleblowers, etc., etc., you'd have thought there would be a mass of it by now.

Not for instance the usual misinterprations of film footage and research by Youtube.

Where are the memo's, agreements for signing off the whole hoax to be maintained over the 50 years, plans and scripts for the hoax, invoices for payments, studios were it was filmed, props, retakes of fluffed footage, etc., etc., etc.,

Given the numbers of people involved and the decades it's meant to have been maintained there would have been a mass of hard evidence. But there isn't.

Unless of course it's all in the secret base beneath a volcano somewhere guarded by goons, as in a James Bond film. Which we all know is unlikely.

All those involved wouldn't have been working for free and they wouldn't have been winging it after being told the plan verbally in some secret room deep in NASA HQ in the early 60's. There would have been project and task plans. But there's nothing. Nada, нічого, ничего, rien, 何もない ……….. you get the drift.

And as one pundit opined, those who believe in conspiracy theories of any size, have never run a project with more than a few people involved.

Posting yet more videos by those who think they know (and they just know it's a hoax because well, for instance, the grey isn't the right shade in the Appollo footage sort of evidence) or blogposts by those who have a mangled and misunderstood grasp of the science and technology involved isn't evidence.

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.



Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:



QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:



As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

VACUUM MEETS AIR :


Vacuum meets air. They tend to equalize very quickly.

Imagine if the air in that lab was pressurized like the fuel in a rocket tank.

I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again. Sorry, folks - I know... you've heard this one before!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies. But let's get on.

Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:




Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

You deliberately obfuscate the issue... The energy comes from the combustion of the fuel and it's impulse ('push') that propels...
A small (ish) mass (gas) ejected wih GREAT energy has enough 'push' to propel the vehicle forward at high speed...

Duh!

Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 09:39:56 PM

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.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

I just thought that maybe I could put it into words that would make the rifle/bullet analogy easier to understand. Some folks here have a hard time grasping the concept that a gas is made up of small pieces of "solid" stuff.

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.



Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:



QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:



As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

Rocket engines create thrust by pumping fuel into a combustion chamber where it burns and expands rapidly.  This is where the pressure comes from, not pressurized fuel tanks.   Yes, the combustion chamber is "always open" but the fuel tanks are not.  The rate of fuel consumption is controlled by valves and the turbo pump.   Also, a vacuum is not a "force"  It is the absence of force such as air pressure. 

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Yes they will.

There’s a limit to how fast gas can equalize through an office.  It’s called throttling.  It’s why I currently have a slow puncture on my bike tire.  The air inside can’t equalize with the atmosphere fast enough to make it completely unusable.

It’s the same with vacuums.  In fact for most engineering applications, we only care about pressure difference (gauge pressure), not absolute pressure.  5 bar to 1 bar is very often no practical difference from 4 bar to 0 bar.

You seem to ascribe almost mythical powers to the awesomeness of vacuums, but they’re not really all that special (aside from being a bit of a pain to create on Earth).

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

No.  Why would it?

Aside from aforementioned throttling from the combustion chamber through the nozzle, fuel in the tanks is not exposed to vacuum.  It has to be pumped into the chamber.

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.



Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:



QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:



As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

Interesting. But where's the actual evidence of a hoax and the planning for it?

Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

Maybe we should ask Heiwa to join the discussion... 

Quote from: radioflat on July 26, 2019, 12:09:21 AM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 09:39:56 PM

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.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

I just thought that maybe I could put it into words that would make the rifle/bullet analogy easier to understand. Some folks here have a hard time grasping the concept that a gas is made up of small pieces of "solid" stuff.

what about grasping concepts that the earth is a ball?
i have a hard time grasping the concept that people can figure out a bunch of math, go to space, look at the earth, and be mistaken that it's a flat plate.
or maybe the hard time is grasping why someone would think the above.
would be nice if that person could put it into words, easier to understand.

Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Ummm, yeah, and...

A rocket boneyard of testing rockets since 1948....oooo...mysteries abound. Seriously? This is evidence of what exactly? NASA has been lying to us and telling us they've been launching shrimp boats into space for the past 70 years when in actuality, they all landed in the ocean?

And geez, what is with you people? Do you understand why rockets slated for space arc? Understand what you are arguing against before you make up arguments about stuff you have no knowledge of.

It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...



Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...



Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

I also didn't think 25 years ago that today I could sit at my desk and with a few mouse clicks purchase a hand-blown glass bong from a craftsman in Malaysia and have it with free two day shipping land at my front door in time for the weekend. It's called 'progress'.

You are not making a point at all.

It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...



Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

And - what's the relevance of this? History of Science is all very interesting, but it is of no significance to the operation of rockets!

Who was Dr Lee De Forest? Oh, he invented the vacuum tube.

Was he already suffering dementia in 1957, blinded by his own self importance with his own invention, or misquoted by the press? If nothing else, he was certainly a self declared conservative, and likely not much of a visionary outside his field of expertise.

Just 4 years after this newspaper article, Yuri Gargarin journeyed into space and completed one full orbit of the earth.

How did Dr Lee De Forest pass away? Did he choke on his own words?

Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Yes: Before SpaceX started making booster stages that could land and be re-used, all rocket booster stages were jettisoned and allowed to drop into the ocean when their fuel was exhausted and their work was done. Even the Space Shuttle had booster rockets fastened to the sides, and these were jettisoned and dropped into the sea when they were done. The sea floor is littered with these booster stages. (I hope none of those shrimp boats were sunk by falling booster rockets! I think they warned boats to stay out of the area where the rockets would fall.)

And of course, if we're going back to 1948, there were a lot of failed tests, so there'd also be some whole rockets and/or bits of rockets that exploded or were detonated intentionally.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 26, 2019, 01:22:55 PM

Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Ummm, yeah, and...

A rocket boneyard of testing rockets since 1948....oooo...mysteries abound. Seriously? This is evidence of what exactly? NASA has been lying to us and telling us they've been launching shrimp boats into space for the past 70 years when in actuality, they all landed in the ocean?

And geez, what is with you people? Do you understand why rockets slated for space arc? Understand what you are arguing against before you make up arguments about stuff you have no knowledge of.

Perhaps they were failed attempts to launch Moonshramp boats?

I notice you still avoid my very simple question like the plauge:
What force is acting on the gas to accelerate it out of the back of the rocket and what is the second body involved in this?
Without some force, the gas needs to remain inside the rocket.

As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

And you extrapolate based upon what?
You also need to focus on a vacuum, because you can't drop the pressure below 0.
The main driving force in the under-expanded regime is the pressure differential between the exhaust gas and the ambient environment.

If your exhaust gas is at 100 bar, and the ambient environment is 1 bar, that is a 99 bar driving force.
However if your exhaust gas is at 1 bar and the ambient environment is a perfect vacuum it is only a 1 bar driving force.

I also notice that this image source you use has no mention of NASA at all, so how did you determine what NASA says?

It is called under-expansion because the rocket exhaust has not yet fully expanded by the time it leaves the nozzle.
So under expansion is appropriate.

The reasons the altitudes are unspecified is because they vary depending upon the nozzle.
So in order to say very high altitudes will be a problem, you need to know what altitude the nozzle was made for, and what the effect of the pressure differential will be.
As such, your extrapolation is completely baseless.

And again, you keep jumping between so many different topics.
Are you really that incapable of defending your claims in one particular area?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Stop lying. No honest scientist would ever say that.
Many pressure control systems are based upon opening up valves for a fraction of a second or even longer and allowing some gas to transfer between the 2 containers.
One of the simplest regulators is a spring loaded valve where the force on the spring determines what pressure differential is required to push open the valve, which will then allow some gas through until the pressure differential drops below a critical level and the valve closes.

If what you are saying was true all our pressure based system would be completely useless.

The speed at which it will equalise depend on a multitude of factors, with keys ones being the pressure differential, the connection between the 2, and the amount of gas that needs to flow.

If you have a very large amount of gas that needs to flow through a small opening, with a small pressure differential it will take quite some time.

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur.

Sure "explosively rapid", with the rocket being pushed away by this explosion.

I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again.

No, that is what we have been citing repeatedly and you have been ignoring/avoiding repeatedly.

Newton's third law demands that either rockets work in a vacuum or that you can magically contain gas in a container, even with an opening in the container.

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true.

Pure BS.
The relative masses of the 2 bodies are irrelevant when it comes to Newton's third law.
The forces need to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction or magically generate forces from nothing.

The mass is important in Newton's second law, F=ma.

The acceleration due to the force will depend upon the mass, and  you can write it like this:
a1*m1=-a2*m2.

So if you have a large object and a small object, then the small object will be accelerated a lot while the large object does not accelerate significantly.
This is used with bullets and with rockets.
The bullet and rocket exhaust exist at very high velocities.

But lets focus on the mass shall we?
The rocket used for the Moon was a Saturn V.
It's first stage has a total mass of 2 290 000 kg.
But only 130 000 kg of that was the empty mass, that leaves 2 160 000 kg of fuel.

The total mass of the Saturn V was roughly 3 000 000 kg.
That means over 2/3 rds of that was used in the 1st stage as fuel, being shot out the back at a very high velocity.

So the comparison to a gun firing a bullet is somewhat inaccurate, as the majority of the mass is in the fuel.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.
Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram.

While you observed Newton's third law in your diagram, the argument completely rejects it.

That argument only applies if they want to actually have it reach that velocity all at once, which would kill everyone inside.
Instead, what they want to do is have it reach the required velocity over a period of time.
All that requires is providing enough force to overcome gravity and start accelerating the rocket, with that force acting for long enough to achieve the required velocity.

In order to Newton's third law you would need to accept that the gas leaving the rocket needs to accelerate the rocket.

It is interesting to note that ... was a space travel skeptic

No it isn't.
Did he provide any basis for his claim?
No.
Was he a rocket scientist?
No.
Why should what he thinks be interesting to the discussion at all?
He provided no rational argument to back up his claim. Instead all he did was dismiss it.

Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

No, that's skepti.

It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...



Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

Why are you using a quote from an electronics expert to bolster your claim that rockets can’t work in a vacuum. His field was not rocketry.

So where is the actual evidence culled from NASA’s or the US Govt’s archives that the moon landings were planned and carried out as a hoax?

<< I want a response as to why you use "Photoshopped photos".  I'll tackle your post elsewhere.  >>

Please explain your source of these photos that you use to attempt to prove that NASA lies!

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!

I thought you admitted your mistakes?

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 26, 2019, 11:07:47 AM

Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

Maybe we should ask Heiwa to join the discussion...

When Joule-Thomson was invoked, I thought that Papa Legba was back.

I think the moon hoax people have beans in their ears.

VACUUM MEETS AIR :


Vacuum meets air. They tend to equalize very quickly.

Imagine if the air in that lab was pressurized like the fuel in a rocket tank.

Totally irrelevant because, as you been told before, the "fuel in a rocket tank" does meet a vacuum!
How many times must it be hammered into you that the fuel and oxidiser flows into the combustion chamber are controlled by the pumps and valves?

The combustion chamber might be "open to the vacuum of space" when rocket engine is not running.
But when at full thrust the pressure in the Rocketdyne F-1 combustion chamber was about 7 MPa (about 1015 psi). That is far, far from being a vacuum.

This isolation from the vacuum outside is because of the converging-diverging  (de Laval) nozzle. You might read up on its properties sometime!
This very important component:


You don't understand much about rocket engines, do you, Mr Cikljamas?

Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

I see no answer in that to

Quote from: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:25:51 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!

Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
An answer, thank you!

I think the moon hoax people have beans in their ears.

What type of beans would a person have to have if they saw the earth from afar and mistakenly thought it round?

1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

If you are such an expert why haven't you offered your services to the space-industry and made a fortune?
But I would suggest that you really haven't the slightest understanding of this and this post proves that!

Before doing that read up on the topic in ROCKET PROPULSION Supplement #1: Rocket Nozzle Design: Optimizing Expansion for Maximum Thrust

Get this straight!
For optimal efficiency (it's never 100%) the exhaust bell on a rocket engine can be designed for any given external pressure.
But since the one engine will be used from near sea-level to possibly 100 km it cannot be optimum for all air pressures.
So a compromise is used and a bell to throat area ratio, or expansion ratio, is selected.
If the bell is too large for the air pressure the gas flow can become unstable and can sometimes destroy the engine.
As a result an overexpansion of more thst 30% at sea-level is usually avoided.

As a result of the above this optimal performance will be met at only one altitude but the penalty for using the non-optimal expansion ratio is not very great.

The thrust of a rocket engine is given by: F = q × V_e + (P_e - P_a) × A_e where:
F = Thrust; q = Propellant mass flow rate; V_e = Velocity of exhaust gases;
P_e = Pressure at nozzle exit: P_a = Ambient pressure: A_e = Area of nozzle exit

Yes, if the rocket bell is under-expanded  the bell can be made larger which reduces the exhaust pressure but increases the exhaust velocity and increases the thrust.

Here is where your total ignorance comes to the fore! You imagined critical "zenith" is classic cikljamas stupidity!

Please do not try any "assumed logical extensions" unless you know what you are talking about! And you don't!

All the happens is that the exhaust fans out wide, which is easily observed, and the rocket the rocket thrust increases a little.
But it does not increase quite as much as could be achieved with a larger bell.

The larger bell soon becomes too large for the rocket body so practical expansion ratios are us usually around 9 and 16.
Have a look at: SpaceX has two versions of the Merlin engine, sea level and vacuum.

Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

So and why is that a problem? Please explain! You obviously have no understanding of rocket thrust do you?

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

And why is that a problem? No thrust is gained from exhaust gases "expanding forwards"!
The thrust is mainly from the momentum of the exhaust gases with a little from the pressure difference.