Why?

Spacex launched 61 flights into orbit in 2022.  If these flights have no purpose other than to crash into the ocean, why would a private for profit company carry out such a massively expensive worthless exercise?  If there is some kind of illusion that they are trying to hype on the world, why not just do 5 or 6 in a year?   How can any company justify that kind of expense to it's shareholders?

North Korea has launched at least 84 missiles in 2022, more than in any other year

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2022/11/15/north-korea-missile-testing-graphics/8256320001/

Shrugs…

Anyway…

https://www.space.com/spacex-celebrates-2022-61-launches

"Most importantly, SpaceX successfully delivered our customers’ payloads to orbit, deployed additional Starlink satellites that add more capacity to our network, and flew critical cargo and astronauts to the @space_station and safely returned them back home [to] Earth," SpaceX added in another tweet (opens in new tab) that day.

I guess they have a business model that requires them to place objects in orbit for customers to generate a profit..

Anyway, changing the night sky….

Challenge for astronomy: Megaconstellations becoming the new light pollution
By Tereza Pultarova published October 22, 2021
The sky may brighten by a factor of two to three due to reflection of sunlight off megaconstellation satellites, a new report finds.

https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-disruption-astronomy-like-light-pollution



An astronomical image marred by trails caused by satellites of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation. (Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)
[/qoute]

Spacex launched 61 flights into orbit in 2022.  If these flights have no purpose other than to crash into the ocean, why would a private for profit company carry out such a massively expensive worthless exercise?  If there is some kind of illusion that they are trying to hype on the world, why not just do 5 or 6 in a year?   How can any company justify that kind of expense to it's shareholders?

Because such expense is passed on to taxpayers.

They don't have to pay a dime because they are a state-funded organization. All cost is to taxpayer. All profit is from taxpayer.

Do you see yet? They can be as wasteful and pointless as possible, because it's not their money. This also explains why I push so hard to disprove them, it is literally an outrage.

And if you're like, "nobody could be THAT wasteful..." We ALREADY see state-funded science experiments doing the exact same thing.
https://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/02/they-paid-you-for-that-7-pointless-and-crazy-science-experiments/
Stuff like that cold or hot weather has an effect on the body.
https://whatculture.com/offbeat/11-most-pointless-scientific-studies-ever?page=3
Oh and if you attach a weighted stick to a chicken, it walks like a dinosaur.
https://whatculture.com/offbeat/11-most-pointless-scientific-studies-ever?page=7
Wasted funds everywhere else, but since it's not their money, and they're collecting your money, go right ahead.

But it's not just about money. All this climate change crap came from crackpot weather studies. These weather studies came from "satellite readings". In other words, not content to be collecting a paycheck on your dime, they proceed to tell orher people how to live, claiming they have the truth about the world and everyone should listen to their crackpot theories because they have information from satellites. Erm, you are gonna have to prove those satellites exist, and then prove they can actually read data and not simply broadcast. And when you can't convince me of either of these, you're gonna have to shut the hell up and go back into your giant overpriced ships for a few years in "Mars".

We also see this insufferable behavior play out with wealthy actors and virtue signalling, trying to get the rest of us to recycle more, not eat meat, or support illegal immigration. So this isn't out of nowhere either. The wealthy like to lord over others.

Because such expense is passed on to taxpayers.

Hmm really? 

SpaceX already has one flight in the books this year: A Falcon 9 lofted 114 small satellites on Tuesday (Jan. 3), on a rideshare mission called Transporter-6. Transporter-6 was the company's 200th successful orbital flight overall, and it marked the 15th mission for that particular Falcon 9's first stage, tying a SpaceX reuse record set just last month.

https://www.space.com/spacex-celebrates-2022-61-launches

SpaceX begins 2023 with Transporter-6 launch

https://spacenews.com/spacex-begins-2023-with-transporter-6-launch/

The largest single customer on the launch, in terms of number of satellites, was Planet, which had 36 of its SuperDove imaging satellites on board. Planet has now launched more than 500 satellites, mostly cubesats like the SuperDoves.

Some of the other major payloads on Transporter-6 included:

Six LEMUR cubesats for Spire, which operates a constellation for collecting weather and tracking data;
Four imaging satellites for Satellogic, which has slowed the deployment of its constellation after revenues fell short of projections in 2022;
Four radio-frequency intelligence satellites for Luxembourg-based Kleos and the BRO-8 radio-frequency intelligence satellite for French startup Unseenlabs;
Three synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging satellites for Iceye and two SAR satellites for Umbra;
Two satellites for Lynk, which is developing a constellation to provide direct-to-handset connectivity services;
Twelve SpaceBee internet-of-things satellites for SpaceX-owned Swarm Technologies;
Gama Alpha, the first satellite by French company Gama to test solar sail technologies;
The Electro-Optical/Infrared Weather Systems (EWS) technology demonstration cubesat for the U.S. Space Force’s Space Systems Command
Several of the payloads on Transporter-6 are orbital transfer vehicles that will later deploy satellites. They include two ION vehicles from D-Orbit, the second Vigoride tug from Momentus and Launcher’s first Orbiter vehicle.

Quote from: stankann on January 07, 2023, 06:01:10 AM

Spacex launched 61 flights into orbit in 2022.  If these flights have no purpose other than to crash into the ocean, why would a private for profit company carry out such a massively expensive worthless exercise?  If there is some kind of illusion that they are trying to hype on the world, why not just do 5 or 6 in a year?   How can any company justify that kind of expense to it's shareholders?

Because such expense is passed on to taxpayers.

They don't have to pay a dime because they are a state-funded organization. All cost is to taxpayer. All profit is from taxpayer.

False.

NASA is definitely SpaceX's largest client. But they also have a bevy of private clients that pay them to launch stuff. Mostly private satellite companies. Here's a partial list:

NASA
Astrobotic
SES
Inmarsat
Sidus Space
Axiom Space
Viasat
Intuitive Machines
Kepler
Satellogic
Intelsat
Iridium Communications
AST & Science
Telesat
Google
PredaSAR
European Space Agency
EOI Space
OneWeb
Digital Globe
Maxar
EXO Launch
Speedcast Intl
Methane SAT
Yah SAT

You can see a list here of all past SpaceX launches and the payloads for each. You'll notice a lot more than just NASA:

Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy Past Launches

Try not to make false claims in the future.

Spacex launched 61 flights into orbit in 2022.  If these flights have no purpose other than to crash into the ocean, why would a private for profit company carry out such a massively expensive worthless exercise? 

I mean. I get your point, but maybe pick literally any other company for your "Why would they waste an exorbitant amount of money?" argument

That's kinda hard in terms of the big hitters, as far as picking your poison:

- SpaceX
- Blue Origin
- Virgin Galactic

Musk, Bezos, & Branson, quite the trifecta of dickishness.

There are about a dozen other companies that launch satellites that perhaps don't have as controversial leadership.

That's kinda hard in terms of the big hitters, as far as picking your poison:

- SpaceX
- Blue Origin
- Virgin Galactic

Musk, Bezos, & Branson, quite the trifecta of dickishness.

There are about a dozen other companies that launch satellites that perhaps don't have as controversial leadership.

But they do have less high-profile instances of said leadership being content to throw ridiculous amounts of money away for something that really wasn't worth it.
Like, if you ask me "Would Elon Musk spend billions for a glorified ego trip?" I mean. My answer would be yes.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 07, 2023, 06:49:50 AM

Because such expense is passed on to taxpayers.

Hmm really? 

Quote

SpaceX already has one flight in the books this year: A Falcon 9 lofted 114 small satellites on Tuesday (Jan. 3), on a rideshare mission called Transporter-6. Transporter-6 was the company's 200th successful orbital flight overall, and it marked the 15th mission for that particular Falcon 9's first stage, tying a SpaceX reuse record set just last month.

https://www.space.com/spacex-celebrates-2022-61-launches

You're just quoting the upside (which is why I cut a large portion of your post). The alleged successes. Not the cost. Elon Musk, who made enough money to privately fund his own space travel system, is now in the toilet at least 1 trillion. Electric cars are a whopping failure. In the end, who picks up the check for such a thing? I'll give you a hint. Come tax time, he writes it off as a loss, and the government reduces his taxes. Meanwhile, they subsidize private space travel (making it public).
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/08/we-must-subsidize-and-regulate-space-exploration/
https://www.quora.com/Private-space-travel-is-the-government-subsidizing-a-hobby-for-billionaires-or-are-private-investors-helping-to-fund-the-next-phase-of-space-exploration?share=1
Again, nobody important ever picks up the check. You do.

Other people's money first (as they trick them into believing they need as much money for these "launches" as they say they do).

Then second, things like power or pride. That's why it's done.

Quote from: Stash on January 07, 2023, 09:22:23 AM

That's kinda hard in terms of the big hitters, as far as picking your poison:

- SpaceX
- Blue Origin
- Virgin Galactic

Musk, Bezos, & Branson, quite the trifecta of dickishness.

There are about a dozen other companies that launch satellites that perhaps don't have as controversial leadership.

But they do have less high-profile instances of said leadership being content to throw ridiculous amounts of money away for something that really wasn't worth it.
Like, if you ask me "Would Elon Musk spend billions for a glorified ego trip?" I mean. My answer would be yes.

For sure, ego. But it also has to work.

Because such expense is passed on to taxpayers.

No, only a small part is.
They are a private company, launching their own satellites, which they then need to use to provide internet, and all that costs money.
Yes, they get some from the taxpayers, but that also needs to provide things back, like GPS.

You are entirely incapable of showing any profit they get.
Instead you just repeatedly assert it.

You're just quoting the upside

No, that would be you.
You want to act like they take in all this money from taxpayers, and don't have to spend any of it.

Quote from: Slime on January 07, 2023, 09:37:50 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 07, 2023, 09:22:23 AM

That's kinda hard in terms of the big hitters, as far as picking your poison:

- SpaceX
- Blue Origin
- Virgin Galactic

Musk, Bezos, & Branson, quite the trifecta of dickishness.

There are about a dozen other companies that launch satellites that perhaps don't have as controversial leadership.

But they do have less high-profile instances of said leadership being content to throw ridiculous amounts of money away for something that really wasn't worth it.
Like, if you ask me "Would Elon Musk spend billions for a glorified ego trip?" I mean. My answer would be yes.

For sure, ego. But it also has to work.

Why does it have to work?

It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.

Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.

Why does it have to work?

It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.

And then produce everything which it is meant to.
i.e. all the things which come from satellites.

Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.

You mean most people are convinced by a continued ascent, while you aren't because you are desperate to pretend it is fake, so you repeat the same that it is a descent, even though you cannot demonstrate that at all, and have no rational justification or evidence to support it.

Satellites can be launched by helium balloon.

At day or night.

Without any fanfare.

If someone sees them, they call it a weather balloon.
Hell, experimental crafts can also be used, and if someone sees THOSE they are written off as UFO nutters.

I've seen magic tricks before, and they tell you that the key is distraction. I only ktnow one magic trick and it is laaaaaame (basically, it's a card trick, where nine cards are placed in 3x3 and supposedly there's "psychic communication" going on, but actually the assistant touches the center card on the top, bottom, left, right, center, or diagonals then says "which card did I pick?" after showing it to the audience and the magician picks based on position). But I know people like magic tricks, so they see them and are entertained. But magic isn't to be misused to control or deceive.

So, what is the distraction here?

Well, I'd say a large jet of flame from a rocket counts.

Meanwhile, somewhere else, NASA is floating up a satellite quietly through helium balloon or solar-powered drones. No big noisy event. Satellite has been placed while you were paying attention to a rocket launch.



You can clearly see a red cord floating in midair. This is not as they say, a parachute (which would have fallen by then), it is a helium balloon, which lost enough helium for the heavier part of the satellite to fall to the ground.

Samsung and other broadcasters know it, NASA knows it, your government knows it, and I'm pretty sure of it. You're gullible enough to believe the lie, and antagonistic enough to attack the messenger. But that's clearly a helium balloon on that cord.

Google's foray into balloon satellites wasn't ambitious enough. They don't fill their crafts with enough helium, nor design them of sturdy materials. They're low enough to be tracked by radar, and they don't sell the lie at all.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Why does it have to work?

It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.

And then produce everything which it is meant to.
i.e. all the things which come from satellites.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.

You mean most people are convinced by a continued ascent, while you aren't because you are desperate to pretend it is fake, so you repeat the same that it is a descent, even though you cannot demonstrate that at all, and have no rational justification or evidence to support it.

And I just showed a video where the shuttle descended after leveling off.

You are so deep in denial you saw something on a video without having seen it.

Meanwhile, someone else showed me a video where a rocket burned in a vacuum, and I focused on the fact that it only technically burned less than a second without slo motion.

Totally different. 

Satellites can be launched by helium balloon.

But it doesn’t duplicate the Doppler effect of satellites not in geosynchronous orbit moving while broadcasting.  Or the Doppler effect of broadcasts from things orbiting the moon.  And doesn’t duplicate the triangulation of broadcasts coming from satellites in orbit, around the sun, nor the moon missions broadcasting.

Doesn’t duplicate the visual effects like those of the international space and the starlink satellites.

And doesn’t explain services provided by satellites that require an altitude from space to provide those services.


What was your reply to this post?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 01, 2023, 05:10:36 AM

is actually dangling suspended from a helium balloon with a rope or string attached below it.

Let’s reference one more cited source…

Quote

Project Loon’s Internet balloons spotted over Guyana

Posted by: Denis Chabrol  in News Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 21:13 3 Comments



A Project Loon balloon spotted over Trinidad earlier Wednesday. (photo taken by camera phone through a telescope by Mr. Mohamed
[/img]

Now..

In a world where I personally used satellite TV in the 80’s.

Personally used “satellite” email while at sea in the middle of the pacific in the 2000’s on a ship that used GPS satellite for navigation and weapons systems.
(Still waiting on a flat earther to answer what navy has a tactical advantage by treating and modeling the world as flat)

Seen the international space station and the starlink satellites for myself.

In a world where amateurs track spy satellites and space missions.

In the context Google/Loom tried a limited trial of high altitude balloon based communications with balloons that in a short time could be spotted from the ground, showed up on radar, would occasionally crash to the ground, tracked by amateurs, actively broadcasting, with balloons that had to be replaced ever 5 months.


Now.  For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage.  And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is from anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.

Of course not, your a troll….

What was your reply to, “Now.  For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage.  And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is from anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.”

So how do reusable rockets that carry people work?

We clearly see the booster landing, but where is the capsule?

Where do those people go for months at a time, and then return in the same capsule?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2023, 02:29:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Why does it have to work?

It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.

And then produce everything which it is meant to.
i.e. all the things which come from satellites.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 02:24:05 AM

Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.

You mean most people are convinced by a continued ascent, while you aren't because you are desperate to pretend it is fake, so you repeat the same that it is a descent, even though you cannot demonstrate that at all, and have no rational justification or evidence to support it.

And I just showed a video where the shuttle descended after leveling off.

You are so deep in denial you saw something on a video without having seen it.

Here's a rocket that shot straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles). It can do that because, if you actually cared to understand orbital mechanics in RE as opposed to just being a sheeple to FE, it wax not trying to orbit.




How deep in denial are you that you can't see a rocket going up straight 66 miles abover the earth?

Meanwhile, someone else showed me a video where a rocket burned in a vacuum, and I focused on the fact that it only technically burned less than a second without slo motion.

Totally different. 

You missed the point entirely again. Doesn't matter if it lasted a second or an hour. A 2 inch rocket engine actually ignited and produced thrust in a...that's right...in a vacuum. Your claim is that it can't do that. It did do that.

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

- Ignition - See the flame?
- Thrust-  See the spring move?
- In a vacuum

Satellites can be launched by helium balloon.

And you would need so many to fake the satellites in space around a RE it isn't funny.
That is quite a large amount of money to waste.

Hell, experimental crafts can also be used, and if someone sees THOSE they are written off as UFO nutters.

Wasting even more fuel.

While you are at it, why not just use $100 bills as the fuel?

You can clearly see a red cord floating in midair.

You have already posted this crap and had it explained why it is crap.
Posting it again after you were already refuted just shows your dishonesty.
Once more, this was not a satellite; it was never marketed or presented as one.
It was always presented as a balloon.

Stop repeating the same refuted dishonest garbage.

Google's foray into balloon satellites wasn't ambitious enough.

It most certainly was. They just recognised it was a waste of money.

But that is the massive waste you want to claim is happening to fake satellites.

And I just showed a video where the shuttle descended after leveling off.

Where?
The only videos you have posted in this thread is a scene from a movie, and an ignorant news report of Samsung's selfie balloon coming back to Earth.

Just where is this magical video of yours that shows a shuttle descending?

You are so deep in denial you saw something on a video without having seen it.

Quite the opposite.
You are so delusional or dishonest, that you will happily pure garbage just to prop up your delusional fantasy.

Meanwhile, someone else showed me a video where a rocket burned in a vacuum, and I focused on the fact that it only technically burned less than a second without slo motion.

Totally different. 

Yes, in one case, you don't provide evidence at all, and make bold claims as if you have, so I reject it; including pointing out your incredibly dishonest double standard where you want to pretend the sun magically stays at the same altitude, even though its angle of elevation is decreasing, and it appears to remain the same size meaning it must be roughly the same distance and thus must be going down; while the shuttle/rocket has a smaller visual size, indicating it is getting further away, meaning perspective will make it appear to be going down, the very thing you say makes the sun appear to be going down.

In the other, evidence clearly demonstrates you are wrong, and you dishonestly pretend that the smoke means the engine didn't work in a vacuum; even though the engine ignited and produced thrust, and while smoke was obscuring the direct view to the flame, you could still see the glow from the flame. But again the important part is that it ignited and produced thrust. This shows that your delusional BS that rockets can't burn in a vacuum or can't produce thrust in a vacuum is BS. But you refuse to acknowledge that and instead you look for whatever pathetic excuse you can to pretend it doesn't clearly show you are wrong.

So yes, totally different.
In one case I reject your entirely baseless claims; while in the other, you make entirely baseless claims, and then make pathetic excuses to ignore the fact the evidence shows you are wrong.

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

Oh no, I clearly saw a burn when I slowed the video on YouTube.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube. But no, the tube was less then 15 feet, yet it lacked escape velocity. If I introduced a pinprick in front, the rocket might achieve escape velocity. The object travels faster and farther and with more force because of the oxygen added. 

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use. We know this, ironically from your video, which shows the breakdown of oxidizer. I ignored the video about water burning a rocket, because water can be aerobic even if it is water enough to snuff most fires.



This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

Oh yes, you have a big impressive tank. Let's say for each oz, the rocket burns for 10 seconds (even though we saw it snuff in under a second). And I dunno, but I'm guessing that container is between 50 and 150 tons. I'm also guess once spent, it cannot be moved, so you'd better have more portable means of oxidizer after that, as you can't exactly drag it out of place and put in a new one.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

That's nice, but we are assuming a very ideal time for burning, one that gives us a full ten seconds of burn per oz. Actually, what we observed was closer to half a second or even a quarter.

Reducing total based on one second, so 55.5555555554 days.
Reducing total based on being a fraction of a second, so about 28 days.

For a 150 tons of fuel, assuming that the fuel isn't blown all at once, you could theoretically take a trip that lasted 28 days. This is also assuming all fuel isn't snuffed immediately and that it's possible to portion it ounce by ounce. That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.

https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

NASA says it takes 21 months (not days, months) for a round trip involving Mars. A heavier oxidizer barrel creates drag that makes takeoff and motion in general even slower. That is, simply adding 30 more tanks (1 month being 30ish days) would just load down the rocket and make it harder to get anywhere. You'd also need a shuttle several times as big to load all of these giant space wasters. I suppose you could fly to the moon, based on their distance. But you couldn't fly to Mars which is 10.5 months one way, and you couldn't fly to Venus which is between 3.5 months and 6.5 months depending on orbit. And apparently Mercury is 7 years away.

https://astronomytelescopes.net/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-venus/
https://jacksofscience.com/how-long-would-it-take-to-get-to-mercury/

None of these are within that 28 day window. And keep in mind, somehow you need to make a round trip. That's only 14 days of usable movement unless you save nothing for the way back.

And all of that is not assuming what I just stated, that motion is slowed in the absence of air. All of that is using time as though the speed projections of NASA are accurate. But rather than enormous 360,000 mph notions, the speed seems like it would slow down actually (based on no escape from a 15 ft or so tube.

So that's 14 days of kinda drifting towards things instead of the image of rocketing towards them because no air means less speed, not more.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

https://www.quora.com/Does-a-rocket-fly-faster-on-earth-or-in-outer-space?share=1

It doesn't matter because we are TOLD that rockets travel faster in space, but this shows drag from lack of oxygen. Meaning even if you got your ship to burn fuel for 28 days or got an even bigger tank, meaning more drag

(more drag  )
the fastest speeds you wil reach are within Earth's atmosphere. And what are these speeds?

I don't know. I have asked this question several times to the internet, and they deflect to projected speeds outside the atmosphere, talking about how the speed varies depending on the mission. "Yes but what is the takeoff speed?" Or that the escape speed is 17,600 to 25,000 mph. "Yes but what is the speed within the atmosphere?"

Yeahhh, no. We're going to assume the numbers are inflated by projection and further inflated by the assumption that speed increased without oxygen, even though that video showed it lack forward motion enough to smash its container when tethered.

So if it somehow managed 25,000 mph within the atmosphere, it would surely be reduced by 1/2 or even 1/10 motion in a vacuum. 2500 mph is about 60000 mpd.
Moon is 238,855 miles away. Meaning you could still reach the moon in 3.9 days. But basically nothing else. Everything else requires much much more oxidizer and you get to the rule of diminishing return.

For space travel to be possible, you need a non-air non-ignition form of propulsion, or to find an atmospheric bridge between planets. Other options simply do not work from a cost effective standpoint, nor a drag standpoint.

Quote

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

Oh no, I clearly saw a burn when I slowed the video on YouTube.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube. But no, the tube was less then 15 feet, yet it lacked escape velocity. If I introduced a pinprick in front, the rocket might achieve escape velocity. The object travels faster and farther and with more force because of the oxygen added. 

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use. We know this, ironically from your video, which shows the breakdown of oxidizer. I ignored the video about water burning a rocket, because water can be aerobic even if it is water enough to snuff most fires.



This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

Oh yes, you have a big impressive tank. Let's say for each oz, the rocket burns for 10 seconds (even though we saw it snuff in under a second). And I dunno, but I'm guessing that container is between 50 and 150 tons. I'm also guess once spent, it cannot be moved, so you'd better have more portable means of oxidizer after that, as you can't exactly drag it out of place and put in a new one.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

That's nice, but we are assuming a very ideal time for burning, one that gives us a full ten seconds of burn per oz. Actually, what we observed was closer to half a second or even a quarter.

Reducing total based on one second, so 55.5555555554 days.
Reducing total based on being a fraction of a second, so about 28 days.

For a 150 tons of fuel, assuming that the fuel isn't blown all at once, you could theoretically take a trip that lasted 28 days. This is also assuming all fuel isn't snuffed immediately and that it's possible to portion it ounce by ounce. That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.

https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

NASA says it takes 21 months (not days, months) for a round trip involving Mars. A heavier oxidizer barrel creates drag that makes takeoff and motion in general even slower. That is, simply adding 30 more tanks (1 month being 30ish days) would just load down the rocket and make it harder to get anywhere. You'd also need a shuttle several times as big to load all of these giant space wasters. I suppose you could fly to the moon, based on their distance. But you couldn't fly to Mars which is 10.5 months one way, and you couldn't fly to Venus which is between 3.5 months and 6.5 months depending on orbit. And apparently Mercury is 7 years away.

https://astronomytelescopes.net/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-venus/
https://jacksofscience.com/how-long-would-it-take-to-get-to-mercury/

None of these are within that 28 day window. And keep in mind, somehow you need to make a round trip. That's only 14 days of usable movement unless you save nothing for the way back.

And all of that is not assuming what I just stated, that motion is slowed in the absence of air. All of that is using time as though the speed projections of NASA are accurate. But rather than enormous 360,000 mph notions, the speed seems like it would slow down actually (based on no escape from a 15 ft or so tube.

So that's 14 days of kinda drifting towards things instead of the image of rocketing towards them because no air means less speed, not more.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

https://www.quora.com/Does-a-rocket-fly-faster-on-earth-or-in-outer-space?share=1

It doesn't matter because we are TOLD that rockets travel faster in space, but this shows drag from lack of oxygen. Meaning even if you got your ship to burn fuel for 28 days or got an even bigger tank, meaning more drag

(more drag  )
the fastest speeds you wil reach are within Earth's atmosphere. And what are these speeds?

I don't know. I have asked this question several times to the internet, and they deflect to projected speeds outside the atmosphere, talking about how the speed varies depending on the mission. "Yes but what is the takeoff speed?" Or that the escape speed is 17,600 to 25,000 mph. "Yes but what is the speed within the atmosphere?"

Yeahhh, no. We're going to assume the numbers are inflated by projection and further inflated by the assumption that speed increased without oxygen, even though that video showed it lack forward motion enough to smash its container when tethered.

So if it somehow managed 25,000 mph within the atmosphere, it would surely be reduced by 1/2 or even 1/10 motion in a vacuum. 2500 mph is about 60000 mpd.
Moon is 238,855 miles away. Meaning you could still reach the moon in 3.9 days. But basically nothing else. Everything else requires much much more oxidizer and you get to the rule of diminishing return.

For space travel to be possible, you need a non-air non-ignition form of propulsion, or to find an atmospheric bridge between planets. Other options simply do not work from a cost effective standpoint, nor a drag standpoint.

Dude…

You finally lost it.

Might be time for you to climb out of the rabbit hole.



Anyway…

, and the ignition is immediately snuffed out,

For the test of your associated screenshot?

Not a true statement.  The fuel and oxidizer were totally consumed.  We definitely know it’s true in the tests where the model rocket consumed all its fuel and oxidizer, burnt up the delay fuse/tracking smoke, then deployed the ejection charge.  Especially in the tank experiments where the ejection charge broke the tank.

Remember the design of most model rocket engines.

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

Even if you think the encased fuel is some how getting its oxygen from the atmosphere, how is it getting passed the combustion gases?

Even in the vacuum chamber tests, the rocket motor is creating its own inert atmosphere.

This was driven home by something I read about oxy-acetylene welding, and that it “combustion gases from the torch is the shielding”.  As in shielding gas to protect the weld puddle from oxygen and moisture in the atmosphere.


https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=2496

From the launch of the rocket from the water tank, any oxygen you think is supporting the burn of the fuel, which burns bottom up the case, would be completely pushed away by the exhaust gases. 

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

Here the burn was 1.9 seconds:


And another one here was a burn of 4.2 seconds:


Both ignited...burned...produced thrust...in a vacuum.

We're talking a 2 inch model rocket engine. Scale it up to, let's say, 9 of these massive rockets...



Fuel burn simulation comparison:



Fun Facts:

The Saturn V rocket’s first stage carries 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen needed for combustion. At liftoff, the stage’s five F-1 rocket engines ignite and produce 7.5 million pounds of thrust.

The first stage of the Saturn V rocket, using five F-1 rocket engines, produced 7.5 million lbs. (3.4 million kilograms) of thrust and was used during launch for about 2 minutes. It gobbled up 20 tons (40,000 pounds) of fuel per second.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Yes, and you display denial.
Scepticism would be rationally questioning but accepting the evidence.
You just look for whatever excuses you can to dismiss the evidence.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

See, this is denial.
It didn't snuff itself out.
We can see the flame in real time.
The smoke blocking the view to the flame doesn't mean it isn't there. We can still see the glow from the flame.

But most importantly, it ignited and produced thrust, clearly proving you are wrong.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

In that case do you admit that rockets can ignite and provide thrust in a vacuum?
If not, you are in denial.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

So you don't understand how combustion works at all?
This rocket engine didn't "smoke itself out". It wont use atmospheric oxygen to burn, because it simply can't get to it fast enough.
Instead, what happens is it produced a lot of smoke, just like it would if it was burnt in air; but the smoke was kept inside the vacuum tube.
And smoke will linger after a fire is put out.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube.

And this is more denial.
You just spout delusional garbage, with no rational justification at all.
Why should it have smashed the tube?
Because you are looking for excuses to dismiss reality?

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

And more denial.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use.

And more denial.
What makes you say they are inefficient? What do you even mean by that?

I ignored the video about water burning a rocket

Because you are in denial.

This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

You mean will you use this and accept reality, or remain in denial and reject the basic laws of fire safety by falsely claiming rockets can't burn in a vacuum.
The rocket burnt because it had oxidiser and fuel, and was provided heat by the igniter.
But you want to reject that and pretend it needs air.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

Just what are all these entirely useless numbers meant to be?

Pulling numbers out of no where, with no justification at all, and no explanation of what they are meant to mean doesn't help you at all.

That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.
NASA says it takes 21 months

You mean you will repeat the same delusional BS that has been refuted countless times.
How many times must it be explained to you?
They do not have the rocket on the entire trip.
The have a burn to get into orbit around Earth. They have another burn to leave Earth orbit and put them on an elliptical orbit around the sun which will take them to Mars.
They may have small course correction burns along the way, but they will be quite short.
They then either have a final burn to enter Mars orbit, or they use Mars' atmosphere to slow down.

But you keep on pretending the rocket needs to burn the entire way.

See, this is another example of you being in denial.
You continually assert the same refuted nonsense (which even you admit is garbage), to try and pretend the RE, space travel, etc is wrong.
If you were just sceptical, you would have done it once, and then accepted that you were wrong and moved on the first time you were refuted.

based on no escape from a 15 ft or so tube.

You mean based upon denial, and you claiming absolute garbage with no rational justification or evidence.

It doesn't matter because we are TOLD that rockets travel faster in space, but this shows drag from lack of oxygen.

Drag is air resitance.
You have already admitted that that doesn't exist in space.
So no, you wouldn't have increased drag in space.

You are yet to provide anything showing any reduced thrust or increased drag from lack of oxygen.

So if it somehow managed 25,000 mph within the atmosphere, it would surely be reduced by 1/2 or even 1/10 motion in a vacuum.

And more pathetic denial.
Just what is there to magically reduce the speed?

For space travel to be possible, you need a non-air non-ignition form of propulsion, or to find an atmospheric bridge between planets. Other options simply do not work from a cost effective standpoint, nor a drag standpoint.

Or, you just need to stop being in denial, and start accepting reality.
Accept the reality that rockets and can and do work in a vaccum.
That they can ignite, burn and produce thrust, because they contain fuel and oxidiser.
Accept that rockets don't need to be burning for the entire trip, because in space you don't have a bunch of air trying to slow you down, and likewise, you can reach much faster speeds as you don't have air resistance to fight.

But you don't want to. You want to reject reality, so you can pretend Earth is flat, so you can pretend the universe is all about you.

Dude…

You finally lost it.

Might be time for you to climb out of the rabbit hole.

Anyway…

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

, and the ignition is immediately snuffed out,

For the test of your associated screenshot?

Not a true statement.  The fuel and oxidizer were totally consumed.  We definitely know it’s true in the tests where the model rocket consumed all its fuel and oxidizer, burnt up the delay fuse/tracking smoke, then deployed the ejection charge.  Especially in the tank experiments where the ejection charge broke the tank.

From the launch of the rocket from the water tank, any oxygen you think is supporting the burn of the fuel, which burns bottom up the case, would be completely pushed away by the exhaust gases. 

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.  But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/what-is-the-temperature-of-space.html

The temperature in outer space is generally 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). This is actually the temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is spread throughout the universe.

Yet amazingly no thermal layers are mentioned. No air, no heat, and only a limited amount of rocket fuel. So we're supposed to believe that not only should the spaceship insulate against -454.75 F of very cold temperature, not only should this sucker not freeze its thrusters solid, but it should also burn in an area that has no air and push against nothing.   

So... we should be able to fly across Antarctica in a spaceship. Why haven't we heard of anyone doing this?

You've heard the expression, "where there's smoke there's fire?"  Where there is smoke there's incomplete combustion.



That's the other sort of oxidation. What we call rust or corrosion. It also doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove the fuel burned cleanly for example. It might be been expended but it did so inefficiently.

Here the burn was 1.9 seconds...
And another one here was a burn of 4.2 seconds...

OMFG.

I have been defeated. This will totally make a difference in the fact that it literally takes months to get anywhere and this has to be oxidized the entire time or the fuel immediately snuffs. And you've yet to prove that thrust is faster (and not slower) within these vacuums.

Meanwhile, I've fired actual bottle rockets, and projectiles fly significantly with more power in an aerobic environment than in a vacuum. Even underwater and ice!



Recall that water, even frozen water has oxygen in it (H²O). Also, the entrance is exposed to the air.  Look how powerful a rocket is even submerged.

So why don't we see this kinda force inside a vacuum? A small rocket can do that to ice, but yet this other rocket can't even dent its container. Slower and weaker, in every case.

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.  But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

Yes. The rockets bring the required oxygen along with them. That's the whole point you're missing.

For liquid rockets, like the ones attached to the backend of the shuttle, that huge tank...



...has 390,000 gallons liquid hydrogen and 145,000 gallons liquid oxygen.

145,000 gallons liquid oxygen

For solid rockets, like the two on the sides of the shuttle, the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together into a solid propellant which is packed into a solid cylinder. A hole through the cylinder serves as a combustion chamber. When the mixture is ignited, combustion takes place on the surface of the propellant.

They bring oxygen with them. And the initial combustion occurs inside the rocket. That's the whole piece you are missing as the rockets aren't missing 2 out of three, they have all three.

Yes. The rockets bring the required oxygen along with them. That's the whole point you're missing.

If only you actually bothered to read things.

Quote

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

Oh no, I clearly saw a burn when I slowed the video on YouTube.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube. But no, the tube was less then 15 feet, yet it lacked escape velocity. If I introduced a pinprick in front, the rocket might achieve escape velocity. The object travels faster and farther and with more force because of the oxygen added. 

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use. We know this, ironically from your video, which shows the breakdown of oxidizer. I ignored the video about water burning a rocket, because water can be aerobic even if it is water enough to snuff most fires.



This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

Oh yes, you have a big impressive tank. Let's say for each oz, the rocket burns for 10 seconds (even though we saw it snuff in under a second). And I dunno, but I'm guessing that container is between 50 and 150 tons. I'm also guess once spent, it cannot be moved, so you'd better have more portable means of oxidizer after that, as you can't exactly drag it out of place and put in a new one.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

That's nice, but we are assuming a very ideal time for burning, one that gives us a full ten seconds of burn per oz. Actually, what we observed was closer to half a second or even a quarter.

Reducing total based on one second, so 55.5555555554 days.
Reducing total based on being a fraction of a second, so about 28 days.

For a 150 tons of fuel, assuming that the fuel isn't blown all at once, you could theoretically take a trip that lasted 28 days. This is also assuming all fuel isn't snuffed immediately and that it's possible to portion it ounce by ounce. That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.

https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

NASA says it takes 21 months (not days, months) for a round trip involving Mars. A heavier oxidizer barrel creates drag that makes takeoff and motion in general even slower. That is, simply adding 30 more tanks (1 month being 30ish days) would just load down the rocket and make it harder to get anywhere. You'd also need a shuttle several times as big to load all of these giant space wasters. I suppose you could fly to the moon, based on their distance. But you couldn't fly to Mars which is 10.5 months one way, and you couldn't fly to Venus which is between 3.5 months and 6.5 months depending on orbit. And apparently Mercury is 7 years away.

https://astronomytelescopes.net/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-venus/
https://jacksofscience.com/how-long-would-it-take-to-get-to-mercury/

None of these are within that 28 day window. And keep in mind, somehow you need to make a round trip. That's only 14 days of usable movement unless you save nothing for the way back.

I estimated for weight (I don't do fluid weight conversions, so that's a quick guess of the container weight filled with oxidizer). The prognosis is not good. Even if you say you can burn for 4.2 seconds (I bet that wasn't a very good vacuum), that doesn't account for long trips.

Nor does it account for that most propulsion reactions use air/water/earth as a medium (motorboating, flying a plane, hang gliding, skateboarding), yet a true vacuum has nothing to propulse on.

Either there are bridges of atmosphere connecting worlds, or there are are problems with your little theory that you still haven't answered, preferring to discuss whether or not something burns without air.

Not how you can even propel things without air.

Now here is a vacuum cleaner burning. This is why vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

Quote

Yes. The rockets bring the required oxygen along with them. That's the whole point you're missing.

If only you actually bothered to read things.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 09, 2023, 06:23:44 AM

Quote

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

Oh no, I clearly saw a burn when I slowed the video on YouTube.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube. But no, the tube was less then 15 feet, yet it lacked escape velocity. If I introduced a pinprick in front, the rocket might achieve escape velocity. The object travels faster and farther and with more force because of the oxygen added. 

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use. We know this, ironically from your video, which shows the breakdown of oxidizer. I ignored the video about water burning a rocket, because water can be aerobic even if it is water enough to snuff most fires.



This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

Oh yes, you have a big impressive tank. Let's say for each oz, the rocket burns for 10 seconds (even though we saw it snuff in under a second). And I dunno, but I'm guessing that container is between 50 and 150 tons. I'm also guess once spent, it cannot be moved, so you'd better have more portable means of oxidizer after that, as you can't exactly drag it out of place and put in a new one.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

That's nice, but we are assuming a very ideal time for burning, one that gives us a full ten seconds of burn per oz. Actually, what we observed was closer to half a second or even a quarter.

Reducing total based on one second, so 55.5555555554 days.
Reducing total based on being a fraction of a second, so about 28 days.

For a 150 tons of fuel, assuming that the fuel isn't blown all at once, you could theoretically take a trip that lasted 28 days. This is also assuming all fuel isn't snuffed immediately and that it's possible to portion it ounce by ounce. That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.

https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

NASA says it takes 21 months (not days, months) for a round trip involving Mars. A heavier oxidizer barrel creates drag that makes takeoff and motion in general even slower. That is, simply adding 30 more tanks (1 month being 30ish days) would just load down the rocket and make it harder to get anywhere. You'd also need a shuttle several times as big to load all of these giant space wasters. I suppose you could fly to the moon, based on their distance. But you couldn't fly to Mars which is 10.5 months one way, and you couldn't fly to Venus which is between 3.5 months and 6.5 months depending on orbit. And apparently Mercury is 7 years away.

https://astronomytelescopes.net/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-venus/
https://jacksofscience.com/how-long-would-it-take-to-get-to-mercury/

None of these are within that 28 day window. And keep in mind, somehow you need to make a round trip. That's only 14 days of usable movement unless you save nothing for the way back.

I estimated for weight (I don't do fluid weight conversions, so that's a quick guess of the container weight filled with oxidizer). The prognosis is not good. Even if you say you can burn for 4.2 seconds (I bet that wasn't a very good vacuum), that doesn't account for long trips.

Nor does it account for that most propulsion reactions use air/water/earth as a medium (motorboating, flying a plane, hang gliding, skateboarding), yet a true vacuum has nothing to propulse on.

Either there are bridges of atmosphere connecting worlds, or there are are problems with your little theory that you still haven't answered, preferring to discuss whether or not something burns without air.

Not how you can even propel things without air.

Now here is a vacuum cleaner burning. This is why vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

You post has nothing to do with the fact that rockets have all the fuel and oxidizer required for a self sustaining reaction.

Example this model rocket motor doesn’t care it’s in a liquid nitrogen bath.
Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion


That is about the least “oxidizing atmosphere” you will create.

I estimated for weight (I don't do fluid weight conversions, so that's a quick guess of the container weight filled with oxidizer). The prognosis is not good. Even if you say you can burn for 4.2 seconds (I bet that wasn't a very good vacuum), that doesn't account for long trips.

Nor does it account for that most propulsion reactions use air/water/earth as a medium (motorboating, flying a plane, hang gliding, skateboarding), yet a true vacuum has nothing to propulse on.

Either there are bridges of atmosphere connecting worlds, or there are are problems with your little theory that you still haven't answered, preferring to discuss whether or not something burns without air.

Instead of just making up numbers based upon a 2" model rocket engine, why not use real numbers. You realize that rocket propulsion, fuel consumption, rate of acceleration over time, etc., is way more complex than what you laid out. A simple example, obviously, is that the mass of the rocket goes down as the rocket burns fuel - Mass flow rate - That has to be factored in among many other aspects.

Here's a good place to start:

Modeling Transient Rocket Operation
(Lecture 7.2: Solid Rockets)

Not how you can even propel things without air.

Sure you can. Newton's 3rd:

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.

Based on what?

But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

Which ones? (Again, it is really oxidiser, not necessarily oxygen)
You have fuel from the fuel tank, oxidiser (which some times is oxygen) from the oxidiser tank, and heat from the igniter.

The temperature in outer space

Is pretty much irrelevant.
Due to having basically no matter, there is no significant thermal mass near the craft to cool it down.

If you would like a simple example of this then just consider water vs air.
If you were to put your hand in a bucket of ice water at 0 C, it would feel very cold, very quickly, potentially to the point of being painful after a short period.
Yet you can put your hand into a -20 C freezer with it just feeling a bit cold, and you can leave it there for a considerable time with no serious detrimental effects.
Likewise, you can put your hand in an oven at 200 C and it just feels a bit warm. But if you put it in boiling water at 100 C you get severe burns almost instantly.

This is because water has a quite large thermal mass, the heat capacity of water is ~4.2 J/g/K, and with a density of roughly 1000 kg/m^3, that works out to be ~4200 kJ/m^3/K.
Conversely, air (at STP) has a heat capacity of roughly 0.7 J/g/K, and a density of roughly 1.2 kg/m^3
This gives ~0.84 kJ/m^3/K.
So the same amount of energy required to change the temperature of 1 m^3 of water by 1 K, would change that same volume of air by 5000 K.

And in space, there is even less air.

So the temperature of space doesn't matter at all.
What matters is how much energy you absorb from the sun, how much energy is converted to heat on the craft, and how much energy is radiating away.

It also doesn't prove anything.

Again, it proves one thing quite clearly, rockets can ignite and burn in a vacuum to produce thrust.
That is all it was intended to do.
It was not intended to be an orbital rocket.
It was not intended to be a perfect rocket with complete combustion of all fuel, and so on.

This will totally make a difference in the fact that it literally takes months to get anywhere and this has to be oxidized the entire time or the fuel immediately snuffs.

Stop repeating the same dishonest delusional garabge.
The rocket does not need to be on the entire time.
Your entire argument is pure garbage.

And you've yet to prove that thrust is faster (and not slower) within these vacuums.

Because that is a complete distraction from the issue at hand.

Once you admit it works in a vacuum we can move on to that.

Meanwhile, I've fired actual bottle rockets, and projectiles fly significantly with more power in an aerobic environment than in a vacuum.

Have you tried these bottle rockets in a vacuum?
Or are you just saying that you have fired a bottle rocket and it was faster than this rocket?

Recall that water, even frozen water has oxygen in it (H²O).

You sure love spouting delusional BS.
Yes, water has oxygen. It also has hydrogen.
It is the product of combustion of hydrogen.
Water cannot provide oxygen for combustion.

So why don't we see this kinda force inside a vacuum? A small rocket can do that to ice, but yet this other rocket can't even dent its container. Slower and weaker, in every case.

Based upon what?
Your pathetic dismissal of it?

What we see here is the rocket producing exhaust gas which creates bubbles under the ice. It isn't breaking the ice.
In fact, if you kept watching the video until the firework exploded we see that it doesn't even crack along that line, and the air bubbles underneath move.


So why should we expect the small rocket held in place by a spring, to dent or break the container?

Once more you are just looking for pathetic excuses to dismiss reality.

I estimated for weight (I don't do fluid weight conversions, so that's a quick guess of the container weight filled with oxidizer). The prognosis is not good.

Using delusional BS in no way connected to reality; just making up numbers with no justification at all; and pretending that the rocket needs to be on for the entire trip.

Your delusional BS does not look good.

Nor does it account for that most propulsion reactions use air/water/earth as a medium (motorboating, flying a plane, hang gliding, skateboarding), yet a true vacuum has nothing to propulse on.

You have already had it explained why this is BS, which doesn't help you at all.
Once more, the rocket creates very high pressure gas which pushes the rocket forwards and propels the exhaust at high speeds. It does not need to be immersed in air to work.

Either there are bridges of atmosphere connecting worlds, or there are are problems with your little theory that you still haven't answered

Or, they have been fully explained, with you hating that fact, so you just repeat the same pathetic lies; all so you can pretend there are problems with the RE and that your delusional fantasy is true.

Again, this is why people accuse you of either being delusional, brainwashed, or a troll.
Because you are repeating the same pathetic BS that has already been refuted countless times, while ignoring the refutation.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 10, 2023, 06:00:18 AM

Quote

Yes. The rockets bring the required oxygen along with them. That's the whole point you're missing.

If only you actually bothered to read things.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 09, 2023, 06:23:44 AM

Quote

You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.

Oh no, I clearly saw a burn when I slowed the video on YouTube.

But there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

Denial says it doesn't happen. Skepticism says it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the film had to be slowed to well below a second in order to see this flame. It smoked itself out, yet the video recorder dishonestly calls this proof.

Fractional seconds of ignition are not proof. This proves that the oxidizer allows for few seconds of burn. But it also proves that the oxidizer very quickly burns off.

I am in denial of nothing. I know there was a burn.

However, you are in denial of the fact that this fire smoked out. Even though you can see in real time that for several seconds smoke will linger in this chamber, far more than flame.

In even a low oxygen zone (mesosphere, for instance) rocket fuel will burn weaker and last for a shorter time. We know this from reduced forward momentum. If forward motion were INCREASED the rocket should have shattered the front of its vacuum tube, and then slowed down when it left the tube. But no, the tube was less then 15 feet, yet it lacked escape velocity. If I introduced a pinprick in front, the rocket might achieve escape velocity. The object travels faster and farther and with more force because of the oxygen added. 

We know from this that the bizarre claim that objects travel faster in space is wrong.

We know that objects have to use oxidizers in order to function in space by ignition. In we know from their own estimates (those three fuel tank systems I quoted earlier) that they are extremely inefficient in fuel use. We know this, ironically from your video, which shows the breakdown of oxidizer. I ignored the video about water burning a rocket, because water can be aerobic even if it is water enough to snuff most fires.



This is a fire triangle, to fight fire, one of these things is removed. Am I going to trust this, the fruit of years of experience fighting fire? Or the dubious claims of a man who used slo-mo to "disprove" the basic laws of fire safety?

Oh yes, you have a big impressive tank. Let's say for each oz, the rocket burns for 10 seconds (even though we saw it snuff in under a second). And I dunno, but I'm guessing that container is between 50 and 150 tons. I'm also guess once spent, it cannot be moved, so you'd better have more portable means of oxidizer after that, as you can't exactly drag it out of place and put in a new one.

16 oz in a pound, so 160 seconds per pound
2000 lb in a ton, so 320000 secobds per ton
150 tons, so 48000000 seconds total
60 minutes per second, so 800000 minutes
60 minutes in an hour, 13333.3333333 hours
24 hours in a day, so 555.555555554 days.

That's nice, but we are assuming a very ideal time for burning, one that gives us a full ten seconds of burn per oz. Actually, what we observed was closer to half a second or even a quarter.

Reducing total based on one second, so 55.5555555554 days.
Reducing total based on being a fraction of a second, so about 28 days.

For a 150 tons of fuel, assuming that the fuel isn't blown all at once, you could theoretically take a trip that lasted 28 days. This is also assuming all fuel isn't snuffed immediately and that it's possible to portion it ounce by ounce. That's a really big ask, that I'm going to allow because it still won't make a difference.

https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html

NASA says it takes 21 months (not days, months) for a round trip involving Mars. A heavier oxidizer barrel creates drag that makes takeoff and motion in general even slower. That is, simply adding 30 more tanks (1 month being 30ish days) would just load down the rocket and make it harder to get anywhere. You'd also need a shuttle several times as big to load all of these giant space wasters. I suppose you could fly to the moon, based on their distance. But you couldn't fly to Mars which is 10.5 months one way, and you couldn't fly to Venus which is between 3.5 months and 6.5 months depending on orbit. And apparently Mercury is 7 years away.

https://astronomytelescopes.net/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-venus/
https://jacksofscience.com/how-long-would-it-take-to-get-to-mercury/

None of these are within that 28 day window. And keep in mind, somehow you need to make a round trip. That's only 14 days of usable movement unless you save nothing for the way back.

I estimated for weight (I don't do fluid weight conversions, so that's a quick guess of the container weight filled with oxidizer). The prognosis is not good. Even if you say you can burn for 4.2 seconds (I bet that wasn't a very good vacuum), that doesn't account for long trips.

Nor does it account for that most propulsion reactions use air/water/earth as a medium (motorboating, flying a plane, hang gliding, skateboarding), yet a true vacuum has nothing to propulse on.

Either there are bridges of atmosphere connecting worlds, or there are are problems with your little theory that you still haven't answered, preferring to discuss whether or not something burns without air.

Not how you can even propel things without air.

Now here is a vacuum cleaner burning. This is why vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

You post has nothing to do with the fact that rockets have all the fuel and oxidizer required for a self sustaining reaction.

Example this model rocket motor doesn’t care it’s in a liquid nitrogen bath.
Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion


That is about the least “oxidizing atmosphere” you will create.

It actually has everything to do with it.

A vacuum tube itself is not a chamber of zero gravity, so we're not seeing in addition to zero gravity (which I don't believe in, but devil's advocate) the airless condition.

This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.

I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.

2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

It's a "sorry God, we not you, are able to travel through the void of outer darkness."

 But such things have no conventional rules of motion. Traveling high numbers of speed (which inflated tenfold because they realized it wouldn't get them anywhere)? Yeah in your dreams.

It is because God is God that he can move across the void. We are humans, and obey laws of physics. Such laws when observed mean that if we accept gravity as a reality, then we are bound by the idea that away from Earth, we are not drawn towards anything. God makes the rules, an atheist building a rocket pretends they don't have to follow them.

Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.