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

Quote from: hoppy on January 03, 2020, 07:15:09 PM

Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?

In the atmosphere the external pressure means that the burnt propellant cannot expand as much as it can in a vacuum.

This reduces the exit velocity of the burnt propellant at sea-level and hence the thrust.

Quote from: hoppy

Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

Sure, there is "a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums".

As explained above rocket engines produce quite a deal more thrust in a vacuum  extreme low pressure than at sea-level.

I hope you can follow this line of reasoning.

The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 11:47:09 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?

Let's give you a though process.

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

Explain what would happen and why.

Quote from: hoppy on January 03, 2020, 07:15:09 PM

Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
 Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

That "big" difference is about 15 PSI, which is 1 bar.

Internal pressure of F-1 engine is 70 bar.
In vacuum the difference is 70 bar.
At sea level the difference is 69 bar.

Obviously, the pressure difference in vacuum is about 1.5% higher, with higher exhaust exit velocity which gives more engine thrust.

All speculation and adherence to fictional books.

Quote from: Macarios on January 03, 2020, 04:46:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 03:35:29 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 02, 2020, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 02, 2020, 08:04:21 AM

Gas on gas.
Pay attention.

So, no rocket, just gasses?

Wow. Is this all you have left.
 

What more do you need?

It all boils down to the one simplest thing:
Is there any force by rocket, or on rocket?
Or just gasses push on each other without it?

Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.
The rocket is being pushed up on that continuous gas fight.
All the rocket is doing is decompressing fuel in order for the reaction of external atmosphere to do it's job.

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 03, 2020, 06:08:14 AM

How am I using exhaust wrong?  Propellant is burned in a combustion chamber.  Once it begins to leave the chamber it is exhaust.

No, not at all.
Once it leaves the nozzle as smoke/cloud then it is exhaust and not until.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

How does a lower pressure gas resist a higher pressure gas to the point where the higher pressure gas stacks and pushes off it?

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.

Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.

Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.



Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.

It is all so very simple.

Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

Except the 2 mediums aren't "totally different".  One gradually transitions into the other and no one seems to be able to say at what point the rocket should have too little air to push against.

Quote from: Macarios on January 03, 2020, 10:11:05 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 03, 2020, 07:15:09 PM

Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
 Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.

That "big" difference is about 15 PSI, which is 1 bar.

Internal pressure of F-1 engine is 70 bar.
In vacuum the difference is 70 bar.
At sea level the difference is 69 bar.

Obviously, the pressure difference in vacuum is about 1.5% higher, with higher exhaust exit velocity which gives more engine thrust.

All speculation and adherence to fictional books.

Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted.  From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.

Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Who should I believe?  Hmmmm?

Exactly but they cannot explain it except

Except that it has been repeatedly explained to you and you have literally no refutation against it so instead of even trying you just dismiss it as nonsense.

The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.

No, meaning it can expand more and accelerate more, meaning it provides more force to the rocket, meaning the rocket is anything but a dead stick.

Let's give you a though process.

Or how about you deal with the one I provided right at the start which you have still failed to address.

You have a tube, with one end open, in a vacuum. Inside the tube is highly pressurised gas.

Explain what would happen and why, making sure you also identify any source of leverage/push-on-push/action-reaction.

Quote from: hoppy on January 03, 2020, 07:15:09 PM

Exactly but they cannot explain it except to place one arrow going up a nozzle into the rocket. It literally makes zero sense and is a cop out of explanations.

No
The arrow from "our" side clearly pushes on inside far side of rocket/ balloon.
Something is pushing on the rocket to move it.
And note there is a definitive difference where the arrrow is a pressure force, not a directional flow of fluid arrow.

Show us the denP side.
You are still yet to show it.

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2020, 01:01:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 11:47:09 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?

Let's give you a though process.

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

Explain what would happen and why.

My guess is that the compressed air, being contained by the elevator shaft, would push on all sides of the chamber (shaft) below the elevator car and push the car upwards. Ironically, this is exactly how submarine missiles are launched out of their tubes. But I digress.

However, this does not equal nor address how a rocket with stronger thrust pushes off of a weaker atmosphere as the atmosphere is not contained within a 'shaft' like the elevator car. So how is your thought process relevant to the rocket scenario and why?

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

That is more like a compressed air "gun" not a rocket so the analogy is meaningless - try again.


Large air cannon fires telephone pole over 2000 feet by missmorganphoenix


Huge Air Cannon by ALtheSciencePal

Explain what would happen and why.

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.

Really, then tell me how.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.
Get that?
Spent fuel.

So anything AFTER your burn, is spent fuel and is exhaust.
So let's start from that point and you tell me how exhaust makes your rocket work.
Or are you going to refuse?

How does a lower pressure gas resist a higher pressure gas to the point where the higher pressure gas stacks and pushes off it?

The lower pressure gas resists the higher pressure gas by being pressurised more by that higher pressure gas. It's action and reaction in equal terms.

What you put in, you get out.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.

Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.

Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.



Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.

It is all so very simple.

That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.

Here's a much better diagram of reality.


The arrows to the left are atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere. Not the arrows to the left being compressed.


I should add in what happens at the sides, externally but this gives the gist.
And this is why your space rockets will remain fantasy.

Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted.  From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.

Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Who should I believe?  Hmmmm?

Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:41:41 AM

Exactly but they cannot explain it except

Except that it has been repeatedly explained to you and you have literally no refutation against it so instead of even trying you just dismiss it as nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:45:42 AM

The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.

No, meaning it can expand more and accelerate more, meaning it provides more force to the rocket, meaning the rocket is anything but a dead stick.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:49:49 AM

Let's give you a though process.

Or how about you deal with the one I provided right at the start which you have still failed to address.

You have a tube, with one end open, in a vacuum. Inside the tube is highly pressurised gas.

Explain what would happen and why, making sure you also identify any source of leverage/push-on-push/action-reaction.

Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.
Over to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:49:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 04, 2020, 01:01:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2020, 11:47:09 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical

I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust.  Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view.  I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.

Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.

Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.

Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?

Let's give you a though process.

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

Explain what would happen and why.

My guess is that the compressed air, being contained by the elevator shaft, would push on all sides of the chamber (shaft) below the elevator car and push the car upwards. Ironically, this is exactly how submarine missiles are launched out of their tubes. But I digress.

However, this does not equal nor address how a rocket with stronger thrust pushes off of a weaker atmosphere as the atmosphere is not contained within a 'shaft' like the elevator car. So how is your thought process relevant to the rocket scenario and why?

But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.

If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.


The atmosphere is doing the very same.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:49:49 AM

Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.

What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?

That is more like a compressed air "gun" not a rocket so the analogy is meaningless - try again.


Large air cannon fires telephone pole over 2000 feet by missmorganphoenix


Huge Air Cannon by ALtheSciencePal

Quote from: sceptimatic

Explain what would happen and why.

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

You really can't think for yourself, can you?

Put your books down and think.

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 04:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.

Really, then tell me how.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.
Get that?
Spent fuel.

So anything AFTER your burn, is spent fuel and is exhaust.
So let's start from that point and you tell me how exhaust makes your rocket work.
Or are you going to refuse?

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:15:26 AM

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Somehow satellites get into orbit for us.

But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.

If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.


The atmosphere is doing the very same.

But in your theory there is no space.
Its all air jnder a dome.
If you consider in your water-football analogy that the water is air and the air is space.
It doesnet exist.
Your anaolgy would require a football fully submerged in a tank of water.
When the ball is pulled down, there is no "compressing stack" and there is no change in level of water - yet the ball rises all on its own.
Why?
Bounancy.
Then your analogy dsscribes a helium or hotair balloon floating up without use of booster rockets.
And therefore your analogy is non relevant.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 04:44:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.

Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.

Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.



Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.

It is all so very simple.

That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.

Here's a much better diagram of reality.


The arrows to the left are atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere. Not the arrows to the left being compressed.


I should add in what happens at the sides, externally but this gives the gist.
And this is why your space rockets will remain fantasy.

So you have exiting air pushing to the right.
And you have atmosair pushing to the left.

What
Arrow
Is
Pushing
The
Rocket
Left?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 05, 2020, 07:15:26 AM

You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.

Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.

Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 04, 2020, 01:32:06 PM

Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted.  From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.

Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Who should I believe?  Hmmmm?

Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.

I see you call yourself a flat earth Scientist. How as a scientist do you explain the existence of so many satellites that are visible on a guaranteed regular basis with either the naked eye or a pair of 10X40 standard binoculars? This is not something open for debate as anyone with half a mind can look up and see them. I find it difficult to understand that you call yourself a scientist and yet refuse to accept the reality of satellites.

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 04:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2020, 02:56:59 AM

Quote from: Macarios on January 04, 2020, 02:52:40 AM

So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?

Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.

Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.

Really, then tell me how.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.
Get that?
Spent fuel.

So anything AFTER your burn, is spent fuel and is exhaust.
So let's start from that point and you tell me how exhaust makes your rocket work.
Or are you going to refuse?

Several people told you how already:

Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.

You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 04, 2020, 07:03:25 PM

Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!

You really can't think for yourself, can you?

Put your books down and think.

No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.

I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".

On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.

Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.

Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?

PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.