Cool Mission?

2. More radio/cell towers and "weather balloons" could be set up, each of which would be deflected as only part of the broadcast system with "satellites in space" being the supposed cause.

Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida


http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

On December 10, 1972 we picked up our first signals on S-band. The main carrier was 45 dB over noise and the voice subcarrier was 25 dB over noise. Apollo 17 passed. over the lunar disc between 1722 and 1819.10 local time (2222-2319 UT), and during these 57 minutes we measured a total Doppler frequency shift of 43 kHz (see figure below). The frequency numbers on the ordinate is the dial reading on the R-390 receiver minus 29000 kHz.

The spacecraft had entered orbit at 1447.23 local time (1947.23 UT), Initially the orbit was 97.4-314.8 km. The orbital period was then 128.2 minutes and the spacecraft would be seen from the earth for about 80 minutes. We clearly did not pick up the signal as the spacecraft appeared from behind the Moon. The doppler curve below is indeed not perfectly symmetrical which most probably is the result of the eccentricity of the orbit. The average speed in the orbit was 1.58 km/s. If the orbit had been perfectly circular at the 128.2 minute period the doppler shift for a simple transmitter would have been = 2287.5 x 1000 x 1.58/300000= ± 12 kHz. For a coherent transponder the doppler shift would be almost double this number (doppler shift on both uplink and downlink), i.e. 46 kHz. We observed about 43 kHz which is consistent with the fact that we did not catch the complete pass in front of the lunar disc.

Your explanation doesn’t explain a moving radio broadcast that caused a Doppler shift. Doesn’t explain why items had to be pointed at the moon.  You have no proof of cellphone towers in 1972 that was in the line of sight of the moon with various attempts to listen to Apollo 17.  No evidence of numerous high altitude balloons transmitters that wouldn’t create the observed Doppler shift in the radio transmissions anyway.  Nor replicate the triangulation of a moon broadcast.  And doesn’t explain the triangulation of the signal coming from the moon by the various radio observations from different monitoring stations.

Note.  Added.  And constantly move as the moon moved from horizon to horizon. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 04, 2023, 01:31:07 PM

Yes. As I said before, broadcasts from the moon are from 225,623 miles away. There is no broadcast station on the moon.

There would be on the spacecraft.  Like there are ones in aircraft.

Ohhh, I see. On the spacecraft. A tiny broadcasting antenna on the spacecraft is able to send signals 225,623 miles away, but when I ask if I can get Russian or Argentinian TV, you probably tell me it is quite impossible.
So ummm, why don't we use tiny broadcasting antennas to get broadcasts all over the world? Because obviously these big celltowers and satellites of ours are obsolete. Onboard spaceship antennas are the wave of the future.

Or you wanna admit that this is crap, and the only thing live was the VHS being stuck into a video player.

Quote

FROM THE MOON TO YOUR LIVING ROOM: THE APOLLO 11 BROADCAST

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/moon-to-living-room-apollo-11-broadcast

As Neil Armstrong eased himself onto the ‘porch’ of the Lunar Module, he pulled open a storage assembly attached to the lander’s lower stage. Contained within it, surrounded by gold-coloured installation blankets, was the black-and-white Westinghouse television camera. To ensure it was able to record images of the mission, the small camera was specially equipped to deal with the high contrast between light and shade on the Moon.

The image and sound signals were transmitted via a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The umbrella-like antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth.

In the cabin, Buzz Aldrin closed a circuit breaker, and black-and-white TV pictures of Armstrong’s ghostly form were beamed back to Earth. The images were grainy and indistinct, but they represented a stunning breakthrough in broadcasting.

Like there are crafts and machines broadcasting from the moon at this very time.

Yes, yes, very fascinating. By what method were these "verified" as "live"?

Quote

Chinese spacecraft successfully lands on moon's far side and sends pictures back home
The spacefaring first promises new insights into lunar composition and evolution

3 JAN 2019BYDENNIS NORMILE

https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-spacraft-successfully-lands-moons-far-side-and-sends-pictures-back-home

China's Chang'e-4 spacecraft successfully landed on the far side of the moon this morning Beijing time, accomplishing a worldwide first in lunar exploration. China's state media confirmed that touchdown occurred at 10:26 a.m. local time; later in the day, the China National Space Administration released the first close-ups of the surface of the far side, taken by Chang'e-4 after it landed.

"It's a milestone for China's lunar exploration project," Yang Yuguang, of the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation in Beijing, told China Global Television Network, a state-operated English TV channel.

China apparently owns a fake moon. Here...



How then do we know that they didn't just land on their fake moon?

 Any evidence they are broadcasting from someplace other than the moon.

I would think the fact that actual Hollywood movies have moon sets would be enough to convince you that whenever NASA with its millions in funds wants a moon landing, they just hire a cheap studio to film.
I would also think that watching films about blue and green screen would be enough to convince you that even before computers and CGI, it was possible to make matte paintings and add some sand for realism. Voila, you're in the desert of Sahara. But no, you insist on proof that spells things out for you rather than making a connection yourself from data. So much for DataOverflow.


Of course not.  Your a troll…

I'm not actually, you're just gullible and refuse to look at other ideas, so I have to tell you the same answers over and over because you immediately dismiss things outside of a very narrow mindset.

Added this cited source…

Yeah, you should study historiography, where they talk about how cited sources in history don't natrer because people can make their own history by picking and choosing from different archaeological finds or just come up with a history out of whole cloth. So you citing news sources is very unconvincing, tbh.

Quote

Radio Amateurs Receive Images from Chinese Lunar Satellite

http://www.arrl.org/news/radio-amateurs-receive-images-from-chinese-lunar-satellite

An open telecommand protocol allows radio amateurs to take and download images. The spacecraft transmits on 70 centimeters (435.400/436.400 MHz) with 250/500 bps GMSK using 10 kHz wide FM single-channel data, with concatenated codes or JT4G. JT4 uses four-tone FSK, with a keying rate of 4.375 baud; the JT4G sub-mode uses 315 Hz tone spacing and 1,260 Hz total bandwidth.

Gosh, now I am terribly convinced.

The Apollo missions are a moot point with all the current lunar missions actively broadcasting from the moon…

The moon has no radio tower. The moon probably has no electrical lines either. No source of energy. So you're relying on a weak antenna to broadcast from the moon to Earth (if not, it would definitely be used in place of our current systems), no power sources, no fuel on the moon, no atmosphere. Somehow they automatically know how to get back when propulsion should have been a problem. Uhhh, this all works smoothly because if it fails we can't go "USA USA!!!" The Russians win. So basically, all this tech works, even though it is as real as Leia's flight in space, because it has to work.



Not because the laws of physics support it. In fact, they very much don't. They don't support anaerobic ignition. They don't support frictionless propulsion. They don't support a launch of a tiny module back to Earth with barely any momentum somehow not missing an orbiting rotating Earth, and they definitely don't support it happening to land in the Pacific Ocean rather than somewhere random like Bulgaria or Chile. For that matter, landing softly just because of parachutes vs all parachutes burning up and everyone's brains smashed to goo. And they really really don't support an auxiliary radio from a spacecraft broadcasting hundreds of thousands of miles, through Earth's thick atmosphere (and through the Van Allen belt which acts as a barrier against radiation, including EM frequencies like radio waves), to display a perfect televised broadcast where everyone can be seen easily walking around like they are on Earth, versus a static-riddled transmission that can't be seen.

You feel like telling me what part of this is in accord with laws of physics?

Meanwhile here's film where they do the same thing but produced professionally by Hollywood.



Basically only proven that Apollo 11 was a low budget movie, that people believed because they wanted to see America beating the Russians.

Not because the laws of physics support it. In fact, they very much don't. They don't support anaerobic ignition. They don't support frictionless propulsion. They don't support a launch of a tiny module back to Earth with barely any momentum somehow not missing an orbiting rotating Earth, and they definitely don't support it happening to land in the Pacific Ocean rather than somewhere random like Bulgaria or Chile. For that matter, landing softly just because of parachutes vs all parachutes burning up and everyone's brains smashed to goo. And they really really don't support an auxiliary radio from a spacecraft broadcasting hundreds of thousands of miles, through Earth's thick atmosphere, to display a perfect televised broadcast where everyone can be seen easily walking around like they are on Earth, versus a static-riddled transmission that can't be seen.

You feel like telling me what part of this is in accord with laws of physics?

Anaerobic Ignition?  Where does that occur?  Ignition in space occurs in a combustion chamber where fuel and oxidizer are mixed and then ignited.

Do you not understand how friction works?  Matter rubbing against matter.

Do you not understand that while space is not a perfect vacuum (meaning 0 matter), the concentration of matter is so abysmally small (estimated at less than 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter), that friction is essentially non-existent.

Clearly you don't understand orbits, trajectories.

Everything you listed with exception to your claim of anaerobic ignitions is done according to the laws of physics.
 

Ohhh, I see. On the spacecraft. A tiny broadcasting antenna on the spacecraft is able to send signals 225,623 miles away,

The signature of a broadcast of a spacecraft in motion is the Doppler shift of the broadcast. And location from the moon by the triangulation of the broadcast from different areas of earth facing the moon while the moon travels from horizon to horizon.

but when I ask if I can get Russian or Argentinian TV, you probably tell me it is quite impossible.

Unless the signal is relayed by satellite. Because the earth is spherical.

As pointed out before.  The first satellite relayed Olympics.

External source..

Tokyo 1964 transmitted live coverage to the Hughes Corporation’s Syncom 3 – the world’s first geostationary communications satellite – whichwas then picked up by the European Relay 1 satellite.

https://feedmagazine.tv/features/tokyo-1964-the-first-modern-olympics/

You

So ummm, why don't we use tiny broadcasting antennas to get broadcasts all over the world?

How do you think some news trucks work..  That can link up and relay to satellites for line of site communication.

A satellite truck is a mobile communications satellite ground station mounted on a truck chassis as a platform.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_truck

Or for frequencies that don’t have the bandwidth to carry a high quality video, and are not line of sight.  Like shortwave radio that can “bounce” off the ionosphere when conditions allow.

External source

When operating at frequencies just below the MUF, losses can be quite small, so the radio signal may effectively "bounce" or "skip" between the earth and ionosphere two or more times (multi-hop propagation), even following the curvature of the earth. Consequently, even signals of only a few Watts can sometimes be received many thousands of miles away. This is what enables shortwave broadcasts to travel all over the world. If the ionization is not great enough, the wave only curves slightly downwards, and subsequently upwards as the ionization peak is passed so that it exits the top of the layer only slightly displaced. The wave is then lost in space. To prevent this, a lower frequency must be chosen. With a single "hop", path distances up to 3500 km may be reached. Longer transmissions can occur with two or more hops.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

Now stop changing the subject..

Your explanation doesn’t explain a moving radio broadcast that caused a Doppler shift. Doesn’t explain why items had to be pointed at the moon.  You have no proof of cellphone towers in 1972 that was in the line of sight of the moon with various attempts to listen to Apollo 17.  No evidence of numerous high altitude balloons transmitters that wouldn’t create the observed Doppler shift in the radio transmissions anyway.  Nor replicate the triangulation of a moon broadcast.  And doesn’t explain the triangulation of the signal coming from the moon by the various radio observations from different monitoring stations.

And constantly move as the moon moved from horizon to horizon. 

No source of energy.

How do meteorites travel to crash into the moon?  And comets travel around / about the solar system.  Just a little gravity and the near zero frictionless atmosphere of space.


As far as rockets..

This has been posted for you before..


Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)



Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)


As pointed out before.  Rockets work in a vacuum, underwater, in inert atmospheres because they contain their own fuel and oxidizer. 

Ohhh, I see. On the spacecraft. A tiny broadcasting antenna on the spacecraft is able to send signals 225,623 miles away, but when I ask if I can get Russian or Argentinian TV, you probably tell me it is quite impossible.
So ummm, why don't we use tiny broadcasting antennas to get broadcasts all over the world? Because obviously these big celltowers and satellites of ours are obsolete. Onboard spaceship antennas are the wave of the future.

Your wilful ignorance and dishonest misrepresentation of reality has no bearing on it.

Once more, they used a highly directional antenna.
You can't get Russian TV, because the curvature obstructs the signal.
There is no curvature between Earth and the moon to obstruct the signal.
Russian TV likely uses omnidirectional antennas to provide coverage in all directions, which significantly reduces the signal intensity with distance.
The transmissions from the moon used high-gain, unidirectional antennas. This meant the loss in signal intensity with distance was greatly reduced.

Or you wanna admit that this is crap, and the only thing live was the VHS being stuck into a video player.

So your claim is that they took a VHS player to the moon to play back pre-recorded footage?
Again, people picked up the signals from the moon.

China apparently owns a fake moon. Here...

You sure do love spouting delusional BS and lying to everyone.
The video you provide says that China WANTS TO launch a fake moon.
Not that it has a fake moon.

I would think the fact that actual Hollywood movies

So that's a no.
You have no evidence at all that it is fake, or that the transmissions weren't sent from the moon.
Instead, all you have is wilful rejection of reality, because it doesn't fit your fantasy.

I'm not actually

Again, either you are extremely deluded, completely brainwashed, trying to con people, or a pathetic troll.
We aren't the gullible ones believing delusional BS which goes so much against reality.

you immediately dismiss things outside of a very narrow mindset.

Once more, that is you.
If it doesn't fit your delusional FE fantasy, you dismiss it, with no rational justification at all.

The moon has no radio tower. The moon probably has no electrical lines either. No source of energy.

Again, you sure do love spouting delusional BS.
For starters, the moon still has the sun visible, so they can still use solar power. Not sure how many have done that though.
But more importantly, they don't need a dedicated radio tower. Each craft typically has their own transmitter.

So you're relying on a weak antenna to broadcast from the moon to Earth (if not, it would definitely be used in place of our current systems)

Why?
Most terrestrial transmitters use an omnidirectional antenna. But the ones on the craft on or around the moon typically use an unidirectional antenna.

Somehow they automatically know how to get back when propulsion should have been a problem.

Why should propulsion be a problem?
Because you are looking for excuses to pretend it can't be real?

Not because the laws of physics support it. In fact, they very much don't.

Yet you cannot show a single fault.
Instead you just repeat the same refuted, delusional BS.

Every single point of that delusional garbage of yours has already been refuted or is trivial to refute.
There is no law of physics which prevents the functioning of rockets in space. This includes the ignition of the rocket, and its subsequent propulsion.
Air resistance is not required for propulsion. Trivial questions you refuse to answer, because you know just how utterly delusional or dishonest any answer would show you to be.
They don't prohibit the launch of a small module to return back to Earth, not the planning required to have it splash down in the pacific ocean, nor to keep the parachutes inside until the ablative heat shield and air resistance has slowed the craft down to a safe speed to deploy the parachutes.
They certainly allow a high-gain unidirectional antenna being used for very long distance communications.

And they were not walking around like they are on Earth.

You feel like telling me what part of this is in accord with laws of physics?

Do you feel like telling us what part is not, with a specific explanation of why, rather than continued pathetic dismissal?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 05, 2023, 07:00:20 AM

No source of energy.

How do meteorites travel to crash into the moon?  And comets travel around / about the solar system.  Just a little gravity and the near zero frictionless atmosphere of space.


As far as rockets..

This has been posted for you before..


Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)

I think you really must be retarded. I seem to explain the same damn things to you over and over, and you don't get it.


Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)

So rocket fuel is waterproof. It is still moving in a medium. I'm not sure space even is a medium.

As pointed out before.  Rockets work in a vacuum, underwater, in inert atmospheres because they contain their own fuel and oxidizer.

No. Vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

Wikipedia

A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. The word is derived from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.

Matter includes air, water, soil, etc.  An empty space.

If I were to get in a swimming pool, I would be able to swim by pushing off of water. Hang gliders push off of air. A runner pushes against the ground.

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

Your insistence that a vacuum cleaner is the same thing means you really don't get it. Ditto for vacuum chambers (unless well run).

A vacuum cleaner is so named because it sucks out air, and earth, temporarily reducing them. But the inside of a vacuum cleaner is not a vacuum. In fact, there is actually plenty of air inside a vacuum cleaner, enough that they strongly recommend against using vacuum cleaners.

So then you show me a "vacuum chamber" which is wide open for quit awhile and outside, and expect me to be impressed when the guy obviously didn't suck out all the air. This guy is what is called "controlled opposition".




He's supposed to convince me that he's a flat earther who was proven wrong. But actually, he added air back in to the experiment with the flame. The vacuum chamber that I showed had a constant outflow and a pretty well sealed room.
Also, notice his rocket didn't actually go anywhere despite his failure to keep the experiment totally anaerobic. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 05, 2023, 07:00:20 AM

No source of energy.

How do meteorites travel to crash into the moon?  And comets travel around / about the solar system.  Just a little gravity and the near zero frictionless atmosphere of space.

There is a video online that says "We have never been to space." No they aren't moon landing deniers or anything like that.



 Their theory is that Earth's atmosphere extends far beyond what was originally thought. So no, we aren't flying through space. But I don't think it is likely that this is a wide circle of atmosphere but rather narrow pathways. Alot of meteors DON'T hit the moon. At when they do, the moon itself is a largely anaerobic zone, so momentum pushes them the last bit, and then they just make a dull thud instead of blowing it up as would happen with the Earth. Meteors can reach us too, but there are limited pathways meaning most potential meteors will be too large, skid off path and just stop. This is why in billions of years, we managed to avoid most extinction-level meteors.   They simply become part of an asteroid belt and hang around if they are too big to stay on path. If they are too small, they burn up in the atmosphere without doing much harm.

Rainbow bridges. If we're gonna believe space exists at all.

I think you really must be retarded. I seem to explain the same damn things to you over and over, and you don't get it.

No, you don't explain anything. You refuse to because you have no explanation.
Instead, you assert the same delusional BS again and again, while ignoring the refutations of that BS of yours.

The simple fact, which you need to reject and ignore and assert the opposite, is that rocket engines do work in a vacuum.
They do not need the air to burn or function.

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

You really do love clinging to this BS don't you?
Once more, consider a simple setup with 2 blocks with a compressed spring between them, and a string holding it together. What happens when the string snaps?
The spring pushes the blocks apart.
It doesn't need the air to push off. It pushes off the other block.

Likewise, with a rocket, it pushes off the exhaust gases.
Conservation of momentum is fairly simple.
If you have a lot of gas being accelerated to move backwards at a high velocity, you need something to be getting an equal and opposite impulse in the other direction.

When you are in the middle of a pool or the middle of an ocean, you aren't pushing off the wall, you are pushing off the water.

Your insistence that a vacuum cleaner is the same thing means you really don't get it. Ditto for vacuum chambers (unless well run).

Did you bother watching the video?
It wasn't a vacuum cleaner.
It was a vacuum chamber.

This guy is what is called "controlled opposition".

No, you are what is called a delusional troll.
Again you are given evidence which demonstrates you are wrong, only to dismiss it.

You cannot justify a single thing you say, either with a rational argument or evidence. Instead you just continually assert delusional BS.
And when provided with any evidence that shows you are wrong, you just dismiss it as fake.

So again, are a troll, a conman, or a brainwashed, delusional fool?

There is a video online that says "We have never been to space."

Which is doing nothing more than playing semantics.
There are many ways to try to arbitrarily define space and Earth's atmosphere and so on.
But for all practical purposes, there is no significant atmosphere more than a few hundred km up.

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

The rocket fuel burns, expands, and exerts forward momentum to the rocket through this process as the gasses exit the nozzle. 

The rocket fuel burning, creating gases that take up tens to thousands times the space of the fuel, with kinetic energy is providing the “matter”..

It’s a controlled explosion.

Figure 1.1 shows a combustion chamber with an opening, the nozzle, through which gas can escape. The pressure distribution within the chamber is asymmetric; that is, inside the chamber the pressure varies little, but near the nozzle it decreases somewhat. The force due to gas pressure on the bottom of the chamber is not compensated for from the outside. The resultant force F due to the internal and external pressure difference, the thrust, is opposite to the direction of the gas jet. It pushes the chamber upwards.

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

We are a long way from your argument rockets don’t burn in a vacuum….

If you watch this video of the rocket motor in the vacuum chamber, it moves when ignited




Anyway… remember this exchange…

Over someone claiming a vacuum cleaner and balloon show that the air from a balloon cannot push a balloon forward in a “vacuum”.

You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.

1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor VS 5 Hp Shopvac - blue - right - short


1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor Vs 5 Hp Shopvac - black - left side


Shrugs….


I know it was rather odd. 

But it was a response to this video a number of years ago.

Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum. NASA hoax

The thread…

Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:12 PM

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1237706/pg1

Just so you know, a ShopVac generally isn't the same thing as a completely anaerobic room.

Then the logic and the “proof” of this video, Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum, is wrong?

Again…


The videos were a response to this video a number of years ago.

Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum. NASA hoax

The thread…

Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:12 PM

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1237706/pg1

 Their theory is that Earth's atmosphere extends far beyond what was originally thought.

So in your delusion.  Humankind should be able to take a hot air balloon suppling its own fuel and oxidizer, or a rocket to the moon.

Glad you cleared that up. 


Why is there a practical limit in altitude above the earth a hot air balloon or a helium weather balloon can reach? 

Rainbow bridges. If we're gonna believe space exists at all.

By the way….

How does this work again…

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 01:35:08 AM

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

The rocket fuel burns, expands, and exerts forward momentum to the rocket through this process as the gasses exit the nozzle. 

The rocket fuel burning, creating gases that take up tens to thousands times the space of the fuel, with kinetic energy is providing the “matter”..

It’s a controlled explosion.

If this is the case, he should be confident that without the large ring holding it in place that it will go all way to the front edge. But I think that it only had enough air make a long trail.

Actually, the flame itself had a really source of oxygen, which it passed to the rocket. There was also a gap in vacuum suction because the same hole was used to light the thing. That gap could have been longer than it looked on film, thanks to freeze frame being a cut that even I can do. In fact, it looked like despite supposedly being a "committed flat earther" he allowed several cuts for it to prove us wrong.

Cut #1: He tried the rocket in an actual vacuum, and it gives more smoke that flame. In other words it fizzled.
(He then produces what he claims is a flow motion cut, even though I can clearly tell this is actually a reverse cut)
Cut #2: He lights it again, with the time he used to give us our "slow motion cut" to fill the room with more oxygen. Second cut has actual flame and moves forward only to kinda drift back lamely
(He does another reverse cut. You can tell it is a reverse cut because something suck toward the end unnaturally)
Cut #3: Wherein during all if this cutting the tube has had even more time. The rocket gives good flame and momentum and surges forward, only to get off course, stop and fill the room again with smoke.

At this point, I was fed up with the dishonesty of the experiment and its screwy clips.

Tell you what, I think we can do this experiment the right way. The tube will be completely vacuum sealed, and air constantly drawn out for the rear. For the entire hour that we try this experiment. The back is never opened to light the flame as this sloppy test does. No oxygen might be transferred through the flame. Why not? Because our test, we are using a longer fuse that  touches the bottom of the glass tube. We are heating the glass not hot enough to melt, but sustained heat for several minutes while it turns red hot. This glass is heated three times twenty minutes apart while the pump continues to suck out all oxygen. Despite conducting plenty of heat to glass, I don't think the wick will even light. We pause the experiment, coat the wick in fuel, place it in the same spot, seal everything up again, vacuum all air out for at least twenty minutes, and heat the glass another three times. Do you think it will make any difference? Because I don't. The tube, in comparison to yours is hermetically sealed and the only source of heat is external conduction. The rocket won't light, no matter how red the glass gets, so long as it isn't hot enough to melt and let air in.

In a room of constant vacuum suction, you have something closer to the vacuum of space, where diffusion scarters molecules of air ever outward except as appointed otherwise by God. Rockets don't perform in emptiness of space. What you just showed me was a sloppy experiment, done several times each time introducing more air into the system.

We are a long way from your argument rockets don’t burn in a vacuum….

If you watch this video of the rocket motor in the vacuum chamber, it moves when ignited

(moved to above)

Anyway… remember this exchange…

Over someone claiming a vacuum cleaner and balloon show that the air from a balloon cannot push a balloon forward in a “vacuum”.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 15, 2022, 05:49:11 AM

You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.

1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor VS 5 Hp Shopvac - blue - right - short


1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor Vs 5 Hp Shopvac - black - left side


Shrugs….

I know it was rather odd. 

But it was a response to this video a number of years ago.

Vacuum. When I say vacuum, I mean something similar to the void of space, that you propose exists outside Earth.

When you say vacuum, apparently you think it's okay that the vacuum have alot of trapped air and dust. When you say vacuum, you are okay with telling me that a cleaning device is the same thing. If it contains air and matter, it is not the same thing.

Vacuum. When I say vacuum, I mean something similar to the void of space, that you propose exists outside Earth.

When you say vacuum, apparently you think it's okay that the vacuum have alot of trapped air and dust. When you say vacuum, you are okay with telling me that a cleaning device is the same thing.

One.   You ignored the movement of the rocket motor in this video..


Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)


….and you didn’t answer…

Over someone claiming a vacuum cleaner and balloon show that the air from a balloon cannot push a balloon forward in a “vacuum”.

The videos were a response to this video a number of years ago.

Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum. NASA hoax

Then the logic and the “proof” of this video, Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum, is wrong?


Nor, did you answer…

 

Rainbow bridges. If we're gonna believe space exists at all.

By the way….

How does this work again…

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

CGI is not important to this discussion. But since you asked, the invention of CGI predates 1973 (Westworld), as the technology was technically available. Limited CGI was involved in some Hitchcock films.



1958. 11 years before the moon landing of 1969. Could you make a crude mashup of a layer or two? Probably so.

There's quite a difference between Vertigo and anything we've seen in the last 70 years of space travel. Here's how Bass' Vertigo title sequence was created. Barely "CGI" as we know it...

1) Hitchcock hired John Whitney to make computer animated opening sequence, Whitney rigged up a WWII 850-lbs, 11,000-components anti-aircraft  targeting computer called "The M5 gun director" to a platform. It was a mechanical computer which needed 5 soldiers to operate, but a computer nonetheless. He then placed cels on that platform and used a pendulum to achieve the needed endless rotation. He collaborated with the graphic designer Saul Bass. Computer animation used first time in history.

2) Opening sequence (designed by Saul Bass) correspond with motifs from the movie itself. For Vertigo there is a strong spiral element in the opening sequence, spirals that correspond to the staircase that triggers Scottie’s Vertigo.

3) Saul Bass insisted that the spirals, which represent 19th century equations, should be accurate and not drawn freehand, which requited both a pendulum and a rotating table (specifically an animation stand). Alas, no animation stand of that time could continuously rotate without its wiring getting messed up.-computer animation used instead. Whitney realized that the gun director could rotate endlessly, and in perfect synchronization with the swinging of a pendulum. He placed his animation cels on the platform that held the gun director, and above it suspended a pendulum from the ceiling which held a pen that was connected to a 24-foot high pressurized paint reservoir. The movement of the pendulum in relation to the rotation of the gun director generated the spiral drawings used in Vertigo’s opening sequence.

"The M5 gun director" to a platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example

Wonder what calculations went with the M5 when used for targeting…

The M5 director is used to determine or estimate the altitude or slant range of the aerial target.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)#Example

Slant Range?

New term to kick around?

Slant Range

https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html



However, this would only be valid if the earth were a flat disk. In addition, however, the earth's radius also has an effect, as shown in figure 3. Thus, the actual topographic distance concerning the slant distance measured by the radar depends on:
the measured slant range,
the actual height of the aim, and
the earth radius, which is valid for the location of the radar unit.



From figure 3 one can see the solution approach. A triangle between the points: Center of the earth, the location of the radar unit, and the location of the flight target, whose sides defines the cosine theorem and thus by the equation:
R2 = re2 + (re + H)2 - 2re(re + H) · cos α
(re is the equivalent radius of the earth).
Under the assumption that the earth is a sphere, from the angle α, the part of the earth's circumference can be calculated with a simple ratio calculation from the total earth circumference:
360° · Rtopogr. = α · 2π re
This partial section of the earth circumference can be regarded as an approximation (here still without consideration of the refraction) to the actual topographic distance.
In practice, however, the propagation of electromagnetic waves is also subject to refraction, i.e. the transmitted beam of the radar is not a rectilinear side of this triangle, but this side is additionally also curved depending on
the transmitted wavelength,
the barometric pressure,
the air temperature and
the atmospheric humidity.
Since all these parameters cannot be included in the radar video map, the map is inevitably inaccurate if the radar software does not take into account the relationship between slant range and topographic range. And this is unfortunately always the case with 2D radar devices since these lack the height information compellingly necessary for these computations!

Didn’t see anything about visually adjusting for the fucking delusional parabola….

If this is the case, he should be confident that without the large ring holding it in place that it will go all way to the front edge.

And it will.
That isn't an argument.

Actually, the flame itself had a really source of oxygen, which it passed to the rocket. There was also a gap in vacuum suction because the same hole was used to light the thing.

You sure do love spouting whatever delusional, dishonest BS you can come up with to pretend this doesn't prove you wrong.

All you are doing is making it clear that you will never believe anything that shows you are wrong.
If you don't agree, why don't you try a rational explanation of why it magically shouldn't work, or do the experiment yourself?

Cut #1: He tried the rocket in an actual vacuum, and it gives more smoke that flame. In other words it fizzled.

No, in other words, it burnt, produced exhaust gases, and propelled the rocket forwards.
It is the type of rocket engine which produces lots of smoke.

Cut #2: He lights it again, with the time he used to give us our "slow motion cut" to fill the room with more oxygen. Second cut has actual flame and moves forward only to kinda drift back lamely

No, second cut appears identical to the first.
You see the initial flame before the chamber starts filling with smoke, just like the first one.

Cut #3: Wherein during all if this cutting the tube has had even more time. The rocket gives good flame and momentum and surges forward, only to get off course, stop and fill the room again with smoke.

You mean it again acts in an identical manner.

There is no evidence of any second take. Just different angles (from the multiple cameras) and different playback speeds.
In all cases, clearly showing that rockets work in a vacuum. They can ignite and propel the rocket forwards.

At this point, I was fed up with the dishonesty of the experiment and its screwy clips.

You mean at this point you have come up with enough dishonest, irrational, delusional BS to dismiss reality and pretend this doesn't clearly show you are wrong.

So if you are fed up with dishonesty, you should be fed up with your own.
You are yet to demonstrate any in this video.

Tell you what, I think we can do this experiment the right way.

You mean the entirely wrong way, without any logic behind it at all.

Because our test, we are using a longer fuse that  touches the bottom of the glass tube.

This means you are NOT trying to ignite a rocket motor in a vacuum.
i.e. you are not trying to do a proper ignition test of the rocket engine.
Instead you are trying to see if you can light the wick.
As such your test will do nothing.
It will entirely fail to demonstrate what you want to claim it will.

This rocket doesn't have a fuse.
It has an electrical igniter, in direct contact with the solid fuel.
If you take that away and use a wick, you are testing if the wick burns, not if the rocket can ignite.

If you dislike the solid wires going through the wall of the vacuum chamber (which if done properly still wouldn't let air in), then you can just set it up with a remote.
i.e. put everything inside the tube, with a wireless radio link to set it off.
That will also help kill your delusional BS of radio waves are sound waves.

We are heating the glass not hot enough to melt, but sustained heat for several minutes while it turns red hot.

i.e. you are threatening the structural integrity of the vacuum chamber, potentially causing it to break, for no reason at all.

We pause the experiment, coat the wick in fuel

To still entirely fail to even attempt to test what you are claiming to test.
Now you want to see if the fuel will ignite in a vacuum.

Do you think it will make any difference?

Probably not, because you still aren't attempting to light the rocket. Instead you are trying to light the wick.
i.e. your experiment is a complete and utter failure.
Not because it doesn't get the expected result, but because it CANNOT demonstrate what you are trying to have it demonstrate.

Rockets don't perform in emptiness of space.

That is your delusional BS, which has been refuted countless times, and which is based upon nothing more than you own pathetic, delusional assertions.
You have no evidence nor rational thought to justify your delusional BS.

The available evidence (and rational thought) clearly demonstrate that rockets can and do function in a vacuum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 07:05:52 AM

Cut #3: Wherein during all if this cutting the tube has had even more time. The rocket gives good flame and momentum and surges forward, only to get off course, stop and fill the room again with smoke.

You mean it again acts in an identical manner.

There is no evidence of any second take. Just different angles (from the multiple cameras) and different playback speeds.
In all cases, clearly showing that rockets work in a vacuum. They can ignite and propel the rocket forwards.

bulmabriefs144 your not doing very well.

You don’t understand a video with slow motion and different angles of the same event.

You lied, or completely don’t understand, accelerometers built into circuit boards.

Didn’t you refer to a satyrical piece as fact?

And tried to pass off mechanical drawn animation cels on a “M5 gun director" machine as CGI.  A gun director that in military service used slat range and took In account the curvature of the earth…


And claimed this about a real 3 dimensional object..

Because the moon has no other side,

Quote from: JackBlack on January 06, 2023, 01:46:51 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 07:05:52 AM

Cut #3: Wherein during all if this cutting the tube has had even more time. The rocket gives good flame and momentum and surges forward, only to get off course, stop and fill the room again with smoke.

You mean it again acts in an identical manner.

There is no evidence of any second take. Just different angles (from the multiple cameras) and different playback speeds.
In all cases, clearly showing that rockets work in a vacuum. They can ignite and propel the rocket forwards.

bulmabriefs144 your not doing very well.

You don’t understand a video with slow motion and different angles of the same event.

Oh I do!

I also know that this smarmy asshole failed on his first try. His attempt literally went up in smoke.

But because he was unwilling to accept the facts as they actually lead (like someone else I am talking to), he doctors a shot under "instant replay." Only that instant replay isn't what we just saw. Because we saw a fizzle with alot of smoke and not much flame.
Yes, I saw a trail of some flame when I reduced motion on the film from standard to 25% speed. But I also saw that the rocket fizzled and returned to its resting position in under a real time second of filming. Nor did it exert enough momentum to break its container.

After the first launch, he shows a "slow motion." But is it? At 2:27, something flies out of the end of the rocket, and 2:47 something flies into the rocket. In other words, he looped the shot to extend the length of ignition.  Actual ignition was far shorter and gave way to smoke, as any flame naturally does without oxygen. Despite the absence of air being supplemented by oxidizers, these burn off from the fuel, and then the fuel turns immediately into smoke. All of this happens in under a second of real time.

What have we learned here? That while oxidizing agents might indeed allow rocket fuel to burn for a time without oxygen, there was no risk of escape. Gradually, the oxidizing agents separate from the fuel and the fuel snuffs itself. Fun fact: we have almost 100 km of thin atmosphere surrounding the Earth (everything but the troposphere, which is only about 2 to 6 miles high). Yet despite a trail of flame, this ignition last for less than one second.
And so I ask you. Are you going to keep re-oxidizing the fuel to keep it burning, all the way to Mars? Further, the ignition here wasn't even strong enough to escape the tube. How exactly does it manage even 36,000 mph (older rocket speed) much less the 450,000 mph that newer rockets somehow are able to fly? We see from this that propulsion is weakened without oxygen not strengthened (even if it does burn for a few seconds. It can't even overcome its own harness. How can it move faster in space than it does on Earth? We just observed it moving slower with less force, and to even get a convincing flame, the man had to slow the film way down, and then loop it. Ignition under a second is not ignition, it's what we call incomplete combustion.



Further, he tells us the chamber is a vacuum. We have no way of knowing to what extent this is the case. Was 20% of the air sucked out? 40%? 60%? 80%? We don't know. Maybe it only sucked out 20% while leaving more than enough for a reaction. In other words, we only have his word to rely upon. Since he already looped a shot, that and $1.85 will get you a plain coffee at Starbucks.

I also know that this smarmy asshole failed on his first try. His attempt literally went up in smoke.

How do you know?

Do you understand the ignition system for model engines?

The proper method is electric ignition..

Because we saw a fizzle with alot of smoke and not much flame.
Yes, I saw a trail of some flame when I reduced motion on the film from standard to 25% speed.

He did comment the rocket engine burnt faster than what it’s designed for.  I think I had the same thing occur when I tried to use two electric fuses instead of one.  The guy might have used too powerful of a electric igniter for the model rocket engine type.

I also had a model rocket blow up on me because the rocket fuel had a crack in its matrix.  The fuel burnt too fast, and created a gas bubble the motor casing couldn’t handle.

But I also saw that the rocket fizzled and returned to its resting position

It had to move forward to return to its resting position…

in under a real time second of filming. Nor did it exert enough momentum to break its container.

Multiple shots and slow motion of the same event.

You seem very confused.

After the first launch, he shows a "slow motion." But is it? At 2:27, something flies out of the end of the rocket,

Model rocket engines have the fuel with oxidizer, then a slow burn fuse to a second charge that fires out the top (opposite end of the nozzle).  It’s a charge to push out a parachute. 

At about 2:42, video is reversed.  At about 2:47, because the video is reversed, the plastic plug used to hold the electric igniter in the nozzle is “sucked” back in…

Standard Igniter Plug 5 Magenta/5 Yellow

https://www.hobbylinc.com/estes-standard-igniter-plug-5-magenta:5-yellow-model-rocket-engine-plug-2251?source=froogle&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5N6C-r60_AIV6f3jBx06GA7BEAQYAiABEgIymfD_BwE

At about 2:49, the video plays in slow motion in the forward.  The electric igniter sets off, the rocket fuel begins to burn and build pressure, the plastic igniter plug is pushed out

and 2:47 something flies into the rocket.

The video being in reverse, the igniter plug.

In other words, he looped the shot to extend the length of ignition. 

The video was played forward and in reverse. 

What have we learned here? That while oxidizing agents might indeed allow rocket fuel to burn for a time without oxygen, there was no risk of escape.

The oxidizer is paired with the fuel for a complete burn…

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Tech/How_Rocket_Engines_Work

The solid fuel is packed tight and capped.  The fuel and oxidizer as they are consumed are expelling exhaust fumes.  The fuel and oxidizer are in a thick case.  The fuel matrix is packed tight, or the burn will chase a void and cause a gas bubble explosion of the motor.

Gradually, the oxidizing agents separate from the fuel and the fuel snuffs itself. Fun fact: we have almost 100 km of thin atmosphere surrounding the Earth (everything but the troposphere, which is only about 2 to 6 miles high). Yet despite a trail of flame, this ignition last for less than one second.

Model rocket engines are packed too tight to be aided in their burn by atmospheric oxygen.  The burn comes from the tightly packed and enclosed fuel and oxidizer.

And so I ask you. Are you going to keep re-oxidizing the fuel to keep it burning,

The fuel and oxidizer are mixed together in the proper ratio to cause a complete burn.

all the way to Mars?

For actual space rockets.  Do a burn for speed, then glide like a comet traveling about the solar system.  If going beyond Mars, use gravity assist like a comet thrown out of our solar system.

Further, the ignition here wasn't even strong enough to escape the tube.

A small model rocket being held in place with a bracket?  Like a car being held in place on a dyno-machine for a car?  Or your brakes?

How exactly does it manage even 36,000 mph (older rocket speed) much less the 450,000 mph that newer rockets somehow are able to fly?

You mean actual space rockets are scaled to achieve their current design velocities.

We see from this that propulsion is weakened without oxygen

No.  You have no clue how rockets work..

not[/i] strengthened (even if it does burn for a few seconds. It can't even overcome its own harness.

Why would a small model rocket motor overcome the harness designed to keep it in place.

Your a troll.

How can it move faster in space than it does on Earth?

Being bigger and have more fuel.

Oh I do!

So you know that you are just spouting whatever dishonest, delusional BS you can to pretend you aren't wrong?

I also know that this smarmy asshole failed on his first try. His attempt literally went up in smoke.

You mean his attempt was a complete success?
That either you don't understand how this rocket engine works, or are willing to blatantly lie about it to pretend the smoke is a failure even though that is expected?

But because he was unwilling to accept the facts as they actually lead (like someone else I am talking to)

You mean you aren't willing to accept the facts so you spout whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it doesn't show you are wrong.

But I also saw that the rocket fizzled and returned to its resting position in under a real time second of filming. Nor did it exert enough momentum to break its container.

Just why should it break its container?

And this is just another example of more dishonesty. For the initial shot, you see it clearly exerting a force, and then there is too much smoke to clearly see anything.
But this rocket will only burn for a few seconds at most due to how small it is.

But is it? At 2:27, something flies out of the end of the rocket, and 2:47 something flies into the rocket.

So you don't understand that the footage was played backwards?
People do that all the time with slow motion filming.
Just what point are you trying to make?
That you are dishonestly looking for whatever BS you can to dismiss it?

What have we learned here?

That you are dishonest or delusional and are happy to use whatever dishonest BS you can to dismiss anything that shows you are wrong?

Even if we accept your delusional BS, you have admitted that in the attempt you claim was a failure (and under vacuum), the rocket ignited and produced thrust, i.e. a force, capable of pushing the rocket forwards.
So what have we learned? That even if we accept your delusional BS about this, it still shows rockets burn in a vacuum and provide thrust.

That while oxidizing agents might indeed allow rocket fuel to burn for a time without oxygen, there was no risk of escape. Gradually, the oxidizing agents separate from the fuel and the fuel snuffs itself.

No, we haven't learned that at all.
That is just more of your delusional BS which you assert with absolutely no rational justification at all.
The force of the expansion of the gas would keep the oxidiser away.

And so I ask you. Are you going to keep re-oxidizing the fuel to keep it burning, all the way to Mars?

You have already had that answered.
You burn to break orbit from Earth and put the craft on an orbit which will intersect the orbit of Mars, when Mars is nearby.
Then around that time you perform another burn to enter Mars orbit.
At most, you make small course correction burns along the way.
You do not need the rocket on for the entire journey.

Further, the ignition here wasn't even strong enough to escape the tube.

You really do love your delusional BS don't you?
Are you capable of ever providing an honest comparison?

That is like taking a little desktop top fan, showing how it can't move a rock, and then claiming aeroplanes must be fake because if a fan can't move a rock, a propeller or turbofan couldn't possibly move a plane.

This is a little model rocket engine, not a full size one.
So the force will be much smaller than a full size one.
It also means it will burn for a much shorter time period than a full size one.

If you launched this rocket, it would not make it to space.
Just like you strapped a desktop fan on a rock, it will not be flying to another country.

Just like a plane moves faster than a desktop fan, a full scale rocket engine will move faster than a toy.

Ignition under a second is not ignition, it's what we call incomplete combustion.

And more delusional BS.
No, it isn't.
Combustion being complete or not has nothing at all to do with how long it takes.
Instead, it depends on if the fuel is entirely (completely) burnt or not.
That can be done completely, very rapidly, such as is the case with flash paper; or it could take a considerable time and still not be complete.

So yet again, you are just spouting dishonest garbage to pretend to have a reason to dismiss it.

Further, he tells us the chamber is a vacuum. We have no way of knowing to what extent this is the case. Was 20% of the air sucked out?

Did you bother watching the video?
At 2:10 they show the vacuum gauge.
It shows -29.2 inHg. That means the pressure in the tube, relative to the pressure outside, is -29.2 inHg.
If it was standard atmospheric conditions outside, that would be 29.9 inHg, meaning there is only 0.7 inHg remaining. So that is 98% of a perfect vacuum, 98% or the air sucked out.

Sure, you can use your usual BS of just rejecting any evidence that shows you are wrong by claiming it is fake, but that just shows how dishonest you are, and how willing you are to reject anything that shows you are wrong.

But you are unable to show a single reason to doubt it. The sole reason you reject it is because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
If it didn't work, you would happily accept it and claim it is proof that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 06:39:57 PM

I also know that this smarmy asshole failed on his first try. His attempt literally went up in smoke.

How do you know?

Do you understand the ignition system for model engines?

The proper method is electric ignition..

Quote

Because we saw a fizzle with alot of smoke and not much flame.
Yes, I saw a trail of some flame when I reduced motion on the film from standard to 25% speed.

He did comment the rocket engine burnt faster than what it’s designed for.  I think I had the same thing occur when I tried to use two electric fuses instead of one.  The guy might have used too powerful of a electric igniter for the model rocket engine type.

I also had a model rocket blow up on me because the rocket fuel had a crack in its matrix.  The fuel burnt too fast, and created a gas bubble the motor casing couldn’t handle.

Quote

But I also saw that the rocket fizzled and returned to its resting position

It had to move forward to return to its resting position…

Quote

in under a real time second of filming. Nor did it exert enough momentum to break its container.

Multiple shots and slow motion of the same event.

You seem very confused.

Quote

After the first launch, he shows a "slow motion." But is it? At 2:27, something flies out of the end of the rocket,

Model rocket engines have the fuel with oxidizer, then a slow burn fuse to a second charge that fires out the top (opposite end of the nozzle).  It’s a charge to push out a parachute. 

At about 2:42, video is reversed.  At about 2:47, because the video is reversed, the plastic plug used to hold the electric igniter in the nozzle is “sucked” back in…

Quote

Standard Igniter Plug 5 Magenta/5 Yellow

https://www.hobbylinc.com/estes-standard-igniter-plug-5-magenta:5-yellow-model-rocket-engine-plug-2251?source=froogle&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5N6C-r60_AIV6f3jBx06GA7BEAQYAiABEgIymfD_BwE

At about 2:49, the video plays in slow motion in the forward.  The electric igniter sets off, the rocket fuel begins to burn and build pressure, the plastic igniter plug is pushed out

Quote

and 2:47 something flies into the rocket.

The video being in reverse, the igniter plug.

Quote

In other words, he looped the shot to extend the length of ignition. 

The video was played forward and in reverse. 

Quote

What have we learned here? That while oxidizing agents might indeed allow rocket fuel to burn for a time without oxygen, there was no risk of escape.

The oxidizer is paired with the fuel for a complete burn…

Your a troll.

Quote

How can it move faster in space than it does on Earth?

Being bigger and have more fuel.

Being bigger and have more fuel.
That's your answer. Really.

So look. If something doesn't work on the small scall, making it bigger doesn't prove it works. In fact it's likely that the larger example is a hoax.

Rockets are designed with a heavy dose of forward momentum. I know, we used to shoot off bottle rockets. And sometimes the rocket moved with enough energy that it pushed the bottle out of our hands (shattering it on the ground in some cases). So that this doesn't try to slip out of its confines, and honestly only goes five or ten feet before smoking itself out, is frankly very lame. Even the smallest bottle rockets we tried traveled a good fifty feet in the air. Probably more than that.

The guy may have gotten it to ignite (without much air), but it doesn't last and it goes slower not faster, with less force rather than more.

I'm sorry, but if anyone disproved space travel, you just did. You're expecting the metallic equivalent of a hot air balloon to continue speed through diminishing hair supply, when your video showed that propulsion is reduced when oxygen is cut. That complete ignition only lasts until you run out of fuel oxidizer, and then rocket fuel chemically converts into regular-grade fuel. And then there's the realization that the effective area of burn is only about 30,000 ft or so, after which the air begins to thin and it wastes fuel. If it got past that (it can't, see below) it would have to deal with no air pressure at all. Practically everything is heavier than that. Rather than zero g, things get real very fast.

Watch ANY takeoff. They don't go straight up. The rocket starts to level off. Then it goes downward. And then NASA mooks all cheer like there's been some great shakes. They tell you it hit the curvature and escaped the atmosphere.

But it's flying far too low to do that! What actually happened is it's fucking heavy, and it flew into an area of lower atmosphere. True to the laws of buoyancy, it sinks. They get it off camera before people see an embarrassing nosedive and cut to some stock footage of the shuttle separation they put together last week and "verify it as live."

Speaking of which, it's time to tell you the facts of life about about live tv.

https://tvs.electronics.narkive.com/eEvjyhfB/is-live-tv-actually-live

All "Live" tv broadcasts are transmitted on a 7 sec delay. This gives the wonderful sensors time to Bleep out curse words and such. Some times the guy on the Bleep button is sleeping and a word or two will get through. But yes live tv for all intensive purposes is live. Some parts of that live broadcast may be prerecorded. The Donald trump show "The Apprentice" just had a Live season finally from the hollywood bowl. Some parts of that show were pre recorded and then incerted into the live broadcast. But it was live you saw it as it happened just 7 seconds later. Here is the exception. Many times a Live show on the Coast, like the david Lettermen show or Saturday night "live" are on at 1130 NY time. Now with the 3 hour difference it would only be 8:30 in La. So CBS & NBC in LA record the live broacasts and plays them back at their scheduled time slots in La. In that case you should see on the screen recorded earlier. Nice thing about doing Live broadcasts like the Apprentice from La is when its 9 pm in NY its only 6pm there so when the show is done brodcasting at 7pm La time its still early enough to go to dinner after the show. People in La could have gone to the Hollywood bowl to see the show but if they went home they would see it played back 3 hours later and it would still say "live" from LosAngles in the beginning.

So when something is "live from the moon", it is on a significant delay (miles and miles away).  If 7 to 15 seconds can censor out stuff, it's basically just called live. Three hours away cuz timezones is called live, even though everyone went home by the time someone in NYC sees an LA broadcast. And since live shows can have prerecorded special effects (as happens on Dancing With The Stars when they use effects screens), live doesn't mean totally real. I could film a cartoon live by moving frame by frame at high speed. But all of those frames were prepped in advance. Much like a magic trick, a staged hoax can be done using prep work.

Like everything else ("natural" on food labels for example), the word live can't really be enforced, and you the viewer wouldn't be able to know the difference.

The guy may have gotten it to ignite (without much air), but it doesn't last and it goes slower not faster, with less force rather than more.

I still stand by there might have been a defect in the rocket motor, or the igniter used might have been too powerful.

Because it’s odd the rocket motor  in the water tank seems to burn well, and more true to its design..

Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)



A video that was provided to you, and you ignore…

Being bigger and have more fuel.
That's your answer. Really.

And what is your answer to this…

Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.


Simple elegant proof the earth is spherical.

—and your growing list of your stupidity——

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 07:05:52 AM

Cut #3: Wherein during all if this cutting the tube has had even more time. The rocket gives good flame and momentum and surges forward, only to get off course, stop and fill the room again with smoke.

You mean it again acts in an identical manner.

There is no evidence of any second take. Just different angles (from the multiple cameras) and different playback speeds.
In all cases, clearly showing that rockets work in a vacuum. They can ignite and propel the rocket forwards.

bulmabriefs144 your not doing very well.

You don’t understand a video with slow motion and different angles of the same event.

You lied, or completely don’t understand, accelerometers built into circuit boards.

Didn’t you refer to a satyrical piece as fact?

And tried to pass off mechanical drawn animation cels on a “M5 gun director" machine as CGI.  A gun director that in military service used slat range and took In account the curvature of the earth…


And claimed this about a real 3 dimensional object..

Because the moon has no other side,

Somehow thinks this is using and dependent on oxygen from the atmosphere to burn and for its power..

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Tech/How_Rocket_Engines_Work

Doesn’t think rockets can glide through space while ignoring that comets travel through the solar system and orbit the sun because of gravity….

The only thing bulmabriefs144 can provide is ignorance, avoidance, lies, and distraction.

Seems like a pretty solid rocket test in a vacuum using a model rocket engine.

Solid vacuum here at -29 psig:



Solid test here, ignition and thrust:



Considering zero evidence to counter the positive results here, rockets do work in a vacuum.

Bonus material - This is awesome, riding along with a Shuttle booster:

Being bigger and have more fuel.
That's your answer. Really.
So look. If something doesn't work on the small scall, making it bigger doesn't prove it works.

You mean that is your excuse to reject reality, while trying to make excuses.
This small scale was intended to fulfil a simple purpose, demonstrate that rockets can ignite in a vacuum and provide a force; and it did that.
But you dishonestly pretend it being small scale refutes much bigger rockets going to space.
Again, that is about as honest as strapping a fan to a rock to try and prove planes are fake.

Rockets are designed with a heavy dose of forward momentum.

They are designed with a large amount of fuel (by which I mean a combination of fuel and oxidiser or monopropellant). For an orbital rocket, it can be mostly fuel.
But they burn this fuel to get a lot of momentum, importantly in a horizontal direction, with a lot of the fuel spent getting that horizontal momentum to achieve orbit rather than simply getting up.

I'm sorry, but if anyone disproved space travel, you just did.

Again, pure BS.
It in no way disproves space travel.
But because you have no rational objection, you just repeat the same pathetic delusional BS.

Again, this is why people accuse you of being delusional or a troll.

Watch ANY takeoff. They don't go straight up. The rocket starts to level off. Then it goes downward.

No, it goes sideways.
Once more, perspective and the curvature of Earth makes it appear to go down.
Again, this is to achieve orbit.
Rockets don't just magically float.

You have NOTHING to support your delusional BS that it is going down.

But it's flying far too low to do that!

Based on what?
Your entirely baseless claim?

If it got past that (it can't, see below)

Where?
You don't provide anything to show it can't.
Yet again you just repeat the same pathetic assertions with no evidence or rational thought backing it up.

Seems like a pretty solid rocket test in a vacuum using a model rocket engine.

Solid vacuum here at -29 psig:



Solid test here, ignition and thrust:



Considering zero evidence to counter the positive results here, rockets do work in a vacuum.

What about this is a "solid test"?

Without any slow motion, this is what I get. 2 to 3 seconds of smoke.


In other words, it is only by lowering the framerate to well faster than one second that we see any ignition, and the ignition is immediately snuffed out, leaving smoke for far longer real time than ignition.

This matters in a real rocket ignition. It means there is a real world limiter to motion in space or even towards space.

But let's look at the atmospheric layers shall we?



So, we all see the takeoff but there's a problem.

We can only see about 10 miles during the day, and we can't see very clearly at night. But a shuttle would have to head straight up, to get past all the layers of sky, all of which have thinner air (most of this trip would be impossible to televise, so we have no way of knowing they went anywhere at all).

But it can't actually do that, because the pressure differential does to a ship what we see happening to a human trying to swim straight up from deep underwater. Basically, if you fire a rocket straight up, you get an explosive case of the bends (that was a flowery way of saying that your ship kinda sorta blows up).  Not a good option. Even assuming you can keep the fuel from smoking itself out (like in the above picture), blowing up puts a real damper on things.
So a space ship has to do an angled upward ascent to delay the process of decompression, just as divers must do.  So when the shuttle goes up, the theory is that it kinda cuts diagonally across the layers of the atmosphere. This is what we see with the shuttle leveling off. There's just one problem. As it heads out of sight, it could also in theory curve back down towards the Earth and land again, as shown in this model.



Guess what? We see most shuttles diving. They aren't continuing in an upward angle, they are heading in a downward angle.



It dives. It doesn't continue upward, even at an angle. We can also tell where it is by how well it burns. They flew offscreen, took no risks, and made a tidy profit. Repaint the shuttle with a different number and reuse it next time.  This is not Apollo 14, this is Encounter 7. And it moves much faster because of newer technology. Anyone questions you, you say "curvature" and they are shut down. "The ship only appears to dive because of the curvature." No, pretty sure I just saw it dive.

Quote from: Stash on January 07, 2023, 01:44:02 AM

Seems like a pretty solid rocket test in a vacuum using a model rocket engine.

Solid vacuum here at -29 psig:



Solid test here, ignition and thrust:



Considering zero evidence to counter the positive results here, rockets do work in a vacuum.

What about this is a "solid test"?

Without any slow motion, this is what I get. 2 to 3 seconds of smoke.

It clearly ignites and clearly shows thrust.

It's a model rocket, about 2 inches in size.

Compare that to:



And not to mention oxygen/propellant tanks of the size like this:



Just a smidge larger than 2 inches.

It dives. It doesn't continue upward, even at an angle. We can also tell where it is by how well it burns. They flew offscreen, took no risks, and made a tidy profit. Repaint the shuttle with a different number and reuse it next time.  This is not Apollo 14, this is Encounter 7. And it moves much faster because of newer technology. Anyone questions you, you say "curvature" and they are shut down. "The ship only appears to dive because of the curvature." No, pretty sure I just saw it dive.

Rocket flying straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles).

What about this is a "solid test"?

Without any slow motion, this is what I get. 2 to 3 seconds of smoke.

You mean the same test, just shot from a different camera in a different position, which still shows ignition in a vacuum and thrust being generated, clearly demonstrating you are wrong?

Just because smoke is obscuring your view to the flame doesn't mean it isn't there, or that the flame has been snuffed out.

This matters in a real rocket ignition. It means there is a real world limiter to motion in space or even towards space.

No, your delusional BS in no way means there is a real world limiter to motion in space.
We still have rocket ignition and thrust in space.

So, we all see the takeoff but there's a problem.

And that problem is you. You are desperate to reject reality, so do so at all costs.

We can only see about 10 miles during the day

And more BS.
We can see roughly 5 km away from us on the SURFACE.
But with gaining altitude, we can see further. That applies both ways.
If we get higher we can see further, and if the object gets higher it can be seen from further.
And if we go up, there is no limit. Instead it is based upon how bright the object is compared with the sky.

But a shuttle would have to head straight up, to get past all the layers of sky

No, it wouldn't.
There is no requirement at all to going straight up.
That is just as honest as claiming if planes were real they would launch straight up to cruising altitude. It is pure stupidity.

most of this trip would be impossible to televise

Why?
Because you say so?

But it can't actually do that, because the pressure differential does to a ship what we see happening to a human trying to swim straight up from deep underwater.

And more dishonest, delusional BS.
The pressure gradient depends on the medium.
Water, with a density of almost 1000 times that of air at atmospheric pressure has a much greater pressure gradient.
If you want a comparison, go from 10 m down to the surface.
As that 10 m down gives you 1 additional atmosphere.

Deep underwater can give you 10s or 100s of atmospheres.

Basically, if you fire a rocket straight up, you get an explosive case of the bends (that was a flowery way of saying that your ship kinda sorta blows up).

No, you don't.
That is just more dishonest, delusional BS you are asserting with no justification at all.

Just why should the shuttle explode?

Even assuming you can keep the fuel from smoking itself out

Such as by using a fuel that doesn't produce as much smoke (that motor, even if it was ignited in air, would still produce that smoke, it would just spread out more because it isn't contained in a tube).

So a space ship has to do an angled upward ascent to delay the process of decompression

Again, pure BS.
It goes upwards at an angle to gain horizontal velocity which it needs to orbit. They don't want it to just go up to space and fall back down. They want it to orbit.

Guess what? We see most shuttles diving.

No, we don't.
What we see is your complete failure to understand the direction of an object at distance.
Do you have any evidence that it is going down at all?
No.

They flew offscreen, took no risks, and made a tidy profit.

How?
If that delusional BS was true, they are now on the hook for faking whatever is meant to be in space for the entire duration it is meant to be in space.
Quite the financial burden.

"The ship only appears to dive because of the curvature." No, pretty sure I just saw it dive.

And again you show your dishonest double standard.
For the sun, or a ship or loads of other things, you claim magic BS perspective and that it isn't actually going down (even though the sun appears to be the same distance away, so it clearly isn't perspective).
But now that you are desperate to falsely claim it goes down, you just assert this dishonest BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 07, 2023, 08:12:07 AM

What about this is a "solid test"?

Without any slow motion, this is what I get. 2 to 3 seconds of smoke.

It clearly ignites and clearly shows thrust.

It's a model rocket, about 2 inches in size.

Compare that to:



And not to mention oxygen/propellant tanks of the size like this:



Just a smidge larger than 2 inches.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 07, 2023, 08:12:07 AM

It dives. It doesn't continue upward, even at an angle. We can also tell where it is by how well it burns. They flew offscreen, took no risks, and made a tidy profit. Repaint the shuttle with a different number and reuse it next time.  This is not Apollo 14, this is Encounter 7. And it moves much faster because of newer technology. Anyone questions you, you say "curvature" and they are shut down. "The ship only appears to dive because of the curvature." No, pretty sure I just saw it dive.

Rocket flying straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles).

Again what about this is a solid test?

1. These big tanks? They leave them behind when they go into space. I always thought this was wasteful and short-sighted. But now that I understand what I do about space travel and ignition, it also seems pretty good proof that the entire thing is crap. They waste all their fuel within the atmosphere? They have none for outer space? How then do these big tanks make any difference (unless they are only used for the big ignition show).
2. Again, it snuffs in under one second. We can see what lsngths he needs to go to in order  to slow it down. At 0.25 speed, I was able to see the trail but not at 1.0 speed on Youtube without him doing something.

They are not leaving the atmosphere. They are performing a wasteful use of fuel, and dumping large metal tanks into the ocean somewhere, while the much quieter shuttle stealth lands somewhere. If the rocket's fuel was suitable for the supposed void of outer space, they would save this for reserve once they got out there. But it's all backwards.

When you need oxidized fuel the most is when normal fuel will not burn. Instead, this is tossed at separating phase.

So, no, this under a second slow motion replay doesn't convince me. Nor does this big tanker (which is not used when it counts).

I believe in God (though I see my life as likely to be short sue to lack of ambition), and have no use for the godless view that we are just specks in a universe, which is the end teaching of the idea of outer space. Not that there are a few worlds out there to visit, but that Earth is just another planet. Sorry, not buying.

Let us read up on the components to a rocket.

1. Solid Rocket Boosters
The SRBs are solid rockets that provide most of the main force or thrust (71 percent) needed to lift the space shuttle off the launch pad. In addition, the SRBs support the entire weight of the space shuttle orbiter and fuel tank on the launch pad. Each SRB has the following parts:

solid rocket motor - case, propellant, igniter, nozzle
solid propellant fuel - atomized aluminum (16 percent) oxidizers - ammonium perchlorate (70 percent) catalyst - iron oxide powder (0.2 percent) binder - polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonite (12 percent) curing agent - epoxy resin (2 percent)
jointed structure
synthetic rubber o-rings between joints
flight instruments
recovery systems parachutes (drogue, main) floatation devices signaling devices
explosive charges for separating from the external tank
thrust control systems
self-destruct mechanism
Because the SRBs are solid rocket engines, once they are ignited, they cannot be shut down. Therefore, they are the last component to light at launch

Solid rocket boosters are separated

2. Main Engines
The orbiter has three main engines located in the aft (back) fuselage (body of the spacecraft). Each engine is 14 feet (4.3 m) long, 7.5 feet (2. 3 m) in diameter at its widest point (the nozzle) and weighs about 6,700 lb (3039 kg).

The main engines provide the remainder of the thrust (29 percent) to lift the shuttle off the pad and into orbit.

The engines burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which are stored in the external fuel tank (ET), at a ratio of 6:1. They draw liquid hydrogen and oxygen from the ET at an amazing rate, equivalent to emptying a family swimming pool every 10 seconds! The fuel is partially burned in a pre-chamber to produce high pressure, hot gases that drive the turbo-pumps (fuel pumps). The fuel is then fully burned in the main combustion chamber and the exhaust gases (water vapor) leave the nozzle at approximately 6,000 mph (10,000 km/h). Each engine can generate between 375,000 and 470,000 lb (1,668,083 to 2,090,664 N) of thrust; the rate of thrust can be controlled from 65 percent to 109 percent maximum thrust. The engines are mounted on gimbals (round bearings) that control the direction of the exhaust, which controls the forward direction of the rocket

Emptying a pool in 10 seconds. This doesn't sound fuel-efficient enough to reach the moon, much less Mars! Further, all that is sent back is a tiny pod.

3. External Fuel Tank­

As mentioned above, the fuel for the main engines is stored in the ET. The ET is 158 ft (48 m) long and has a diameter of 27.6 ft (8.4 m). When empty, the ET weighs 78,000 lb (35,455 kg). It holds about 1.6 million lb (719,000 kg) of propellant with a total volume of about 526,000 gallons (2 million liters).

The ET is made of aluminum and aluminum composite materials. It has two separate tanks inside, the forward tank for oxygen and the aft tank for hydrogen, separated by an intertank region. Each tank has baffles to dampen the motion of fluid inside. Fluid flows from each tank through a 17-inch (43 cm) diameter feed line out of the ET through an umbilical line into the shuttle's main engines. Through these lines, oxygen can flow at a maximum rate of 17,600 gallons/min (66,600 l/min) and hydrogen can flow at a maximum rate of 47,400 gallons/min (179,000 l/min).

The ET is covered with a 1-inch (2.5 cm) thick layer of spray-on, polyisocyanurate foam insulation. The insulation keeps the fuels cold, protects the fuel from heat that builds up on the ET skin in flight, and minimizes ice formation. When Columbia launched in 2003, pieces of the insulating foam broke off the ET and damaged the left wing of the orbiter, which ultimately caused Columbia to break up upon re-entry.

The EFT is also left behind, it I remember correctly. This means all this waste is done simply to "leave the atmosphere". And the remaining engine "empties like a pool". The idea that somehow it make it out through space on just that, when space has no air? Without keeping reserve tanks? Propeling back from the moon just from a simple launcher? The entire thing is preposterous.

My mom and I struggle with asthma, and my dad with sleep apnea. But for the grace of God, we wouldn't be able to breathe. We also burn wood in our backyard fireplace. Last night we had a bonfire. No air? It wouldn't have even been able to start. We've had smoked out fires before. They are pretty much doomed.

This ignition you show in slow motion is impressive but it doesn't hold up to real time. I know what a smokeout looks like.

 And all thrusters except the main got tossed aside, leaving pollution in their wake.