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

And again, figured out how your gas can move when you claim such motion is impossible?

?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?

The lot of it.
What does a hovercraft sit on?

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 07:50:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?

The lot of it.
What does a hovercraft sit on?

Ah! Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "Hovercraft can't fly in a vacuum".
Might be less than 80-odd pages then.

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.

Saturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).

Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.

In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.

Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.

And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?

1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't?

Ah! Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "Hovercraft can't fly in a vacuum".
Might be less than 80-odd pages then.

Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 07:50:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?

The lot of it.
What does a hovercraft sit on?

The whole bottom of the hovercraft.

Draw a water rocket tube.
Highlight the portion that isbbeing pushed upwards from below.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.

Clearly it does mean something. You managed to get it.

Saturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).

Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.

In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.

Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.

And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?

1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't?

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:53:50 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 07:50:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?

The lot of it.
What does a hovercraft sit on?

The whole bottom of the hovercraft.

Draw a water rocket tube.
Highlight the portion that isbbeing pushed upwards from below.

As soon as you show me exactly what you believe that water rocket is doing by clearly pointing it out on a diagram of your doing and I'll happily do one showing you how it really works.

Or you can back out.

Nope
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.

Nope
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.

It just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
All you can do is basically regurgitate what's set up on a platter for you.
There's never any real explanation.

As for me backing out. I did this last time and you started playing your little games, so you can play act all you want.
Show me how your water rocket works by giving as much detail to what is actually happening from your point of view.
Once you do that I'll be more than happy to do one showing what really happens.


If a genuine person asks me to do one I'll consider doing it.
As for you; only when you put up.

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?

Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 19, 2019, 04:07:15 AM

Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.

Wrong.

No, while pressure at a surface has a direction, for a fluid it is the same in all directions and thus does not have a direction, just a value.

?

My questions were quite simple.
Avoiding them yet again just shows you have no interest in the truth.

Why not just admit you don't give a damn about the truth and you are spouting nothing but lies?

Again:
What direction is the gas pushing on that gauge? Left or right (or not at all)?
And how can the gas leave the tube when you say that motion in vacuum is impossible as there is no atmosphere and nothing to push off?

These simple questions destroy your claims. It's understandable why you need to repeatedly ignore them, as you don't care about the truth.

What does a hovercraft sit on?

The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Just like with a rocket, the only thing that can push it up is the gas.

But this also shows a key difference between the hovercraft and the rocket.
The hovercraft needs a solid or liquid object to push against to keep that gas pressurised, as the pressure is based upon how quickly the gas can escape, and that is what controls its altitude. If it gets too close to the ground, the pressure increases as not as much gas can escape which pushes it up more. If it gets further away the pressure drops as more air escapes.

If the nonsense you are saying was true, and the air is fine to create that resistance then a hovercraft should work equally well in mid air. But it doesn't.
So this shows it isn't the air creating the resistance for the rocket.

Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.

So you admit that your gas can't "fly" in a vacuum and thus must remain trapped inside the rocket?

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.

Why?
You are yet to substantiate that in any way.

As soon as you show me exactly what you believe that water rocket is doing by clearly pointing it out on a diagram of your doing and I'll happily do one showing you how it really works.

Stop lying.
You have no interest at all in providing a diagram of how one really works. You still need to do that for my simple rocket remember?
I met your challenge, and you were then completely unable to provide a diagram showing how it works.


Now how about you cut the crap and answer the simple question. Tell us how the gas manages to leave the rocket if nothing can fly in vacuum, that motion requires the atmosphere, and that you need something to push off to move and there is nothing to push off in the vacuum.

If you can't figure out anything then admit that either rockets work in a vacuum or according to your "model" the gas would need to remain trapped in an open container.

Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.

So you keep saying but you can't even explain how to calculate the lift of an aircraft at various altitudes.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 09:30:54 AM

Nope
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.

It just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
All you can do is basically regurgitate what's set up on a platter for you.
There's never any real explanation.

As for me backing out. I did this last time and you started playing your little games, so you can play act all you want.
Show me how your water rocket works by giving as much detail to what is actually happening from your point of view.
Once you do that I'll be more than happy to do one showing what really happens.


If a genuine person asks me to do one I'll consider doing it.
As for you; only when you put up.

a typical soda bottle rocket
You have a 1 liter bottle
Have it filled halfway
Have a cork with a tube through the center, so air can be pumped in.
 a clip that holds the cork on.
 a pump to pump air in.
test one: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
 turn the bottle upside down,
Pull the Cork out, water starts to flow out as air flows in, the bottle goes know where.
Test two: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
 turn the bottle upside down, attach an air pump, pump air in,
remove clip holding the cork.
the air pressure above The water, pushes the water out at a Great speed, pushing the bottle up into the air.
Opposite and equal reaction.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 08:48:00 AM

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?

Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?

Standing where and seeing what?

The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Just like with a rocket, the only thing that can push it up is the gas.

But this also shows a key difference between the hovercraft and the rocket.
The hovercraft needs a solid or liquid object to push against to keep that gas pressurised, as the pressure is based upon how quickly the gas can escape, and that is what controls its altitude. If it gets too close to the ground, the pressure increases as not as much gas can escape which pushes it up more. If it gets further away the pressure drops as more air escapes.

If the nonsense you are saying was true, and the air is fine to create that resistance then a hovercraft should work equally well in mid air. But it doesn't.
So this shows it isn't the air creating the resistance for the rocket.

If the rotors were strong enough and fast enough and the skirt was more robust and larger, the hovercraft would work equally well in mid air but it can't because it would need amazing power and to gain that you need............................you need......to expand gases much more with.......with.....a BURN.


This is why your rocket works with atmosphere and why it lifts off quickly.
BUT.......BUT, not your fictional space rockets of supposed thousands of tonnage. It's complete nonsense and a joke on us......BUT, it is a good sci-fi carry on and people can buy into that if they wish.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 08:42:19 AM

Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.

So you keep saying but you can't even explain how to calculate the lift of an aircraft at various altitudes.

No need to play around with equations to know everything requires an atmosphere in order to work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 09:37:40 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 19, 2019, 09:30:54 AM

Nope
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.

It just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
All you can do is basically regurgitate what's set up on a platter for you.
There's never any real explanation.

As for me backing out. I did this last time and you started playing your little games, so you can play act all you want.
Show me how your water rocket works by giving as much detail to what is actually happening from your point of view.
Once you do that I'll be more than happy to do one showing what really happens.


If a genuine person asks me to do one I'll consider doing it.
As for you; only when you put up.

a typical soda bottle rocket
You have a 1 liter bottle
Have it filled halfway
Have a cork with a tube through the center, so air can be pumped in.
 a clip that holds the cork on.
 a pump to pump air in.
test one: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
 turn the bottle upside down,
Pull the Cork out, water starts to flow out as air flows in, the bottle goes know where.
Test two: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
 turn the bottle upside down, attach an air pump, pump air in,
remove clip holding the cork.
the air pressure above The water, pushes the water out at a Great speed, pushing the bottle up into the air.
Opposite and equal reaction.

Pushing the bottle up, how?
Explain exactly what happens from your side.
That's no explanation with what you gave.
Do a diagram, as rough as you want to show what's happening.
Let's see how you justify it.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 19, 2019, 12:51:39 PM

The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Just like with a rocket, the only thing that can push it up is the gas.

But this also shows a key difference between the hovercraft and the rocket.
The hovercraft needs a solid or liquid object to push against to keep that gas pressurised, as the pressure is based upon how quickly the gas can escape, and that is what controls its altitude. If it gets too close to the ground, the pressure increases as not as much gas can escape which pushes it up more. If it gets further away the pressure drops as more air escapes.

If the nonsense you are saying was true, and the air is fine to create that resistance then a hovercraft should work equally well in mid air. But it doesn't.
So this shows it isn't the air creating the resistance for the rocket.

If the rotors were strong enough and fast enough and the skirt was more robust and larger, the hovercraft would work equally well in mid air but it can't because it would need amazing power and to gain that you need............................you need......to expand gases much more with.......with.....a BURN.


This is why your rocket works with atmosphere and why it lifts off quickly.
BUT.......BUT, not your fictional space rockets of supposed thousands of tonnage. It's complete nonsense and a joke on us......BUT, it is a good sci-fi carry on and people can buy into that if they wish.

You are right, you will remain in your cave, of reality, in which we cannot fathom. So I will leave your to it.

You are right, you will remain in your cave, of reality, in which we cannot fathom. So I will leave your to it.

No problem. I have zero interest in people like you so it's no issue for me.

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 10:30:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 08:48:00 AM

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?

Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?

Standing where and seeing what?

Near every big rocket launch site and watching the launch live.

Why those rockets (including Space X) don't "act like a firework"?

What is lifting them? 1 bar of the atmosphere, or 70 bar of the engine?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 09:23:53 PM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 10:30:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 08:48:00 AM

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?

Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?

Standing where and seeing what?

Near every big rocket launch site and watching the launch live.

Why those rockets (including Space X) don't "act like a firework"?

What is lifting them? 1 bar of the atmosphere, or 70 bar of the engine?

One bar of atmosphere?
No wonder you can't get your head around it.

Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.
Also don't just sit and give out the one bar as if that's it.
It's around 15 lbs per square inch of external pressure.
Per square inch.
Per square inch.

You have to try and push that 15 lbs per square inch away by creating a pressure to do just that.
Where's that pressure?

From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point.
It's basically a gas fight as long as that rocket gas is burning at the strength (thrust) it's burning at into that super compressed resistance below.


What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to be the fantasy they really are.

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 10:59:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 09:23:53 PM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 10:30:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 08:48:00 AM

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?

Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?

Standing where and seeing what?

Near every big rocket launch site and watching the launch live.

Why those rockets (including Space X) don't "act like a firework"?

What is lifting them? 1 bar of the atmosphere, or 70 bar of the engine?

One bar of atmosphere?
No wonder you can't get your head around it.

Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.
Also don't just sit and give out the one bar as if that's it.
It's around 15 lbs per square inch of external pressure.
Per square inch.
Per square inch.

You have to try and push that 15 lbs per square inch away by creating a pressure to do just that.
Where's that pressure?

From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point.
It's basically a gas fight as long as that rocket gas is burning at the strength (thrust) it's burning at into that super compressed resistance below.


What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to be the fantasy they really are.

It's more of a word salad fight than a 'gas fight'. This whole bit, "From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point." is like Caesar with grilled chicken, dressing on the side. Wow, that's a whole bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything in aggregate.

It's more like:

"What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to work as advertised. Because I don't believe in 'space', pressure gauges, well studied biochemistry and how things work on a molecular level, I have concocted a musing, if you will, replete with strung together words regarding stacks and sponges and such and endeavor to pass it all off as a well founded theory. Yet, I never math, oh no. Nor experiment, absolutely not. Just me and my musings. Enjoy."
- Sceptimatic - 2019

It's more of a word salad fight than a 'gas fight'. This whole bit, "From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point." is like Caesar with grilled chicken, dressing on the side. Wow, that's a whole bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything in aggregate.

It's more like:

"What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to work as advertised. Because I don't believe in 'space', pressure gauges, well studied biochemistry and how things work on a molecular level, I have concocted a musing, if you will, replete with strung together words regarding stacks and sponges and such and endeavor to pass it all off as a well founded theory. Yet, I never math, oh no. Nor experiment, absolutely not. Just me and my musings. Enjoy."
- Sceptimatic - 2019

And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds. You have to look it all up and copy and paste diagrams that show nothing of what we're arguing.
When asked to show what you mean in easy detail, you can't and your argument comes down to, "we don;t need to."

Yes you do if you want to prove something to someone who doesn't believe the official narrative.
Or, deck out.
But you people can't do that so you re-quote with a few additions to basically have a meaningless pop at me which addresses nothing other than your own ego.

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 08:34:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 07:41:07 AM

Quote from: Macarios on December 19, 2019, 04:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2019, 03:49:25 AM

Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.

If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?

The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.

Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.

Clearly it does mean something. You managed to get it.

Quote from: Macarios

Saturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).

Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.

In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.

Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.

And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?

1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't?

If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.

The Saturn V had five Rocketdyne F-1 engines in the first stage - hence the name!
So prove "it would not work" because the Saturn V obviously did work! Look:

This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.

What total crap you dream up!
It was throttled by controlling the fuel flow rate. What's so strange about that?

Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.

Garbage! The F-1 engines in the Saturn V provided thrust for 165 seconds (2 min 45 secs).

Quote from: Stash on December 20, 2019, 12:23:24 AM

It's more of a word salad fight than a 'gas fight'. This whole bit, "From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point." is like Caesar with grilled chicken, dressing on the side. Wow, that's a whole bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything in aggregate.

It's more like:

"What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to work as advertised. Because I don't believe in 'space', pressure gauges, well studied biochemistry and how things work on a molecular level, I have concocted a musing, if you will, replete with strung together words regarding stacks and sponges and such and endeavor to pass it all off as a well founded theory. Yet, I never math, oh no. Nor experiment, absolutely not. Just me and my musings. Enjoy."
- Sceptimatic - 2019

And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds. You have to look it all up and copy and paste diagrams that show nothing of what we're arguing.
When asked to show what you mean in easy detail, you can't and your argument comes down to, "we don;t need to."

Untrue. In easy detail, which has been expressed in all manners, example, a pressure gauge registers pressure. That's what they are designed to do, the world over. Yet you claim, against the pressure gauge industry and the millions of people who use them and rely on them, that they actually work differently than designed - They are incorrect instruments, according to you and you alone.

Yet you provide no evidence of such, an audacious claim other than it's just what you think. No math, no experiments, nothing. Talk about, "I don't need to"? Seriously?

The world over uses math, calculations for flight, transport, both human and goods. Would you ever fly on a plane knowing that all involved are reading gauges that comport what you deem as incorrect, miscalculated, mis-interpreted, mis-used? Do you get outside? I mean seriously?

If the rotors were strong enough and fast enough

i.e. if it was a helicopter, which relied upon moving atmosphere from above to below, rather than generating its own gas and pushes that away?

This is why your rocket works with atmosphere and why it lifts off quickly.

You are yet to show how rockets work with atmosphere rather than just a lot of pressure.
As has already been pointed out, hovercraft use the atmosphere, as in they use fans/rotors which move it.
Rockets don't.

It's complete nonsense

So far the only nonsense in this thread is that presented by FEers trying to refute the reality of rockets working in space.
They need to resort to pure nonsense which results in the insanity of high pressure gas being trapped in an open container, while rejecting extremely well established laws of physics backed up by mountains of evidence.

Again, if you want to assert they are nonsense and have anyone take you seriously you need to address the very simple issue you have been avoiding for so long.

One bar of atmosphere?
No wonder you can't get your head around it.

So reality gets in the way?
1 bar isn't anything significant for a rocket, especially considering it is pushing all around the rocket.

Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.

We do. You are the one massively struggling with it.
The rocket pushes a lot of gas out at a very high velocity (action).
In reaction the gas pushes the rocket up.
Not very difficult.
But of course, as it doesn't need the atmosphere that would mean rockets work in space so you need to reject it.
But up in space, just consider the action reaction sequence. Does the gas leave?
If so, that demands a reaction, and the only thing that can be is the rocket moving.

It's around 15 lbs per square inch of external pressure.

Or around 10 000 kg/m^2. Not much.
For a rocket like the Saturn V which weighed 2 970 000 kg, you would need more like 300 bar, like what was produced by the engines.

You have to try and push that 15 lbs per square inch away by creating a pressure to do just that.

And the much higher pressure of the engine can easily do that, making it as if the atmosphere wasn't there.
The atmosphere cannot resist that pressure and push back by any significant amount.
It is only the high pressure gas from the rocket that can push the rocket up.

If it was a gas fight like in your fantasy you would see the exhaust stay with the rocket or at best fly out to the sides.

What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets

Yes, what you repeatedly say is baloney. But you need it to be otherwise they clearly show Earth is round, and you can't handle that.

If it was all baloney then why are you incapable of addressing such a simple issue?

And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds.

More pathetic lies.
Plenty of us have made a quite coherent response which exposes your nonsense by ourselves.
I don't need to go and copy and paste to refute your nonsense.

I did that quite early on in the thread and you still haven't figured out a solution which can prevent rockets from working in space without magically containing gas.

Again, how does the gas leave the rocket when you claim such motion would be impossible as there is no atmosphere and nothing to push off?

Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.

Then why are you ignoring the action and reaction?

Rocket is pushing the exhaust "without the reaction to push back"?
LOL