Space tourism

We are moving into the era of space tourism.   One of the few universal beliefs of FEers that I have seen is that space travel is a hoax, and that a huge conspiracy is in effect to keep the hoax going.  I am curious as to how this "hoax" will be maintained as more and more people that are not affiliated with space programs are going to be going to space.  How will they be brought into the hoax or duped?

I mean, I believe in space travel and I both hope and don't think it'll happen. Space tourism would cause an unbelievably large amount of pollution, and unlike satellites, there's no justification. Plus, no way in hell will any country approve it. Same reason rockets will never replace planes: who in their right mind would approve large numbers of rockets to go up into the atmosphere right above their country? It's a missile with a civilian payload.

Shrugs…

This is the Largest Homemade Rocket

Not sure why rocket hobbyists would lie about space.

So it would have to be NASA, all the other space agencies, private companies, and all the extreme rocket enthusiasts in on the lie…..


Or.  Simply space where comets zoom around the sun and planets is actually a thing.

I mean, I believe in space travel and I both hope and don't think it'll happen. Space tourism would cause an unbelievably large amount of pollution, and unlike satellites, there's no justification. Plus, no way in hell will any country approve it. Same reason rockets will never replace planes: who in their right mind would approve large numbers of rockets to go up into the atmosphere right above their country? It's a missile with a civilian payload.

Agreed.  The outrageous carbon footprint of space travel is justified for scientific research and probably many other services that benefit society in general.  But absurdly rich people should find less damaging ways to get their rocks off.

Tourists are people who don't know what they are talking about, that get suckered into spending money.

This is why they are able to be tricked into buying ghost tours (places where supposedly there was a murder... oh I'm sorry, where there "may have been" a murder, as they are always careful to say; there may also have been nothing happen ever) and UFO tours (Area 51).

So you'll forgive me if I likewise think that like Bigfoot and The Thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(roadside_attraction)
outer space is one big con. If you want your tax dollars to be at work creating a state of the art scam, go right ahead. But don't drag me into this nonsense.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/mar/17/ipswich-we-have-a-problem-space-cadets-the-reality-show-that-never-left-the-ground

In December 2005, a group of outgoing twentysomethings were gathered in front of cameras on a remote airstrip. They had signed up for a reality TV series called Thrill Seekers and, after five months of auditions, they were about to find out the exact premise of the show. The host, John Vaughan, told the excited gang: “You are about to become … the very first televised British space tourists.” They started screaming, jumping up and down and hugging each other. They were going into actual space!

Except, they weren’t. Despite now lingering forgotten, Space Cadets, launched 15 years ago by Channel 4, was one of television’s biggest ever pranks. A meticulously executed televised stunt (costing a reported £5m) that wanted to test how far the limits of reality could be pushed. Could they convince a few members of the public that they had blasted off from a Russian space camp into the galaxy on a five-day orbit of the Earth?

The answer was yes. They totally fooled them. Human beings are gullible idiots.

outer space is one big con.

Why can’t rockets travel in the paths of comets….

Well, let's see...

A denser object is heavier than no atmosphere, therefore it falls. Comet hits the Earth by the same rules of buoyancy that determine sink or swim in the ocean.

A denser object is heavier than no atmosphere, therefore it falls. Outer space would be the ultimate resistor to travel. That is if outer space even exists (I think it's more a white void outside, where only God exists, kinda like the blank panel of an unfinished comic). No, sorry at 20th century technology, we do not have that capacity to propel a massive rig of metal weighing alot more than nothing in a medium that doesn't even have any means for things to push off of.

Things go down, certainly. Because they can be heavier. But kudos if you can figure out how to make something that weighs this much
https://allaboutweigh.com/how-much-does-the-space-shuttle-weigh/
launch up when most propulsion either fizzles out

or only works for a few seconds.

If you wanna believe in the con, it is fully your choice.
It becomes my business when you try to sell me on it.

A denser object is heavier than no atmosphere, therefore it falls.

Why?
Why should being denser make it fall?

Outer space would be the ultimate resistor to travel.

Why? There is NOTHING to resist motion there.

No, sorry at 20th century technology, we do not have that capacity to propel a massive rig of metal weighing alot more than nothing in a medium that doesn't even have any means for things to push off of.

All the evidence shows otherwise.
It doesn't need air outside to push off, when it is ejecting exhaust at a high velocity relative to it. That is what it is pushing off.

or only works for a few seconds.

A candle doesn't have the oxidant required.
A rocket does.

If you wanna believe in the con, it is fully your choice.

In that case I reject your con.
I will stick to reality.

A denser object is heavier than no atmosphere, therefore it falls.

That doesn’t answer why comets pivot about the sun to continue there orbit. 

Why do objects in earth’s atmosphere fall down into more dense air and not up into the less resistance of the thinner upper atmosphere.

launch up when most propulsion either fizzles out

or only works for a few seconds.

Seems like we had the rocket motor oxidizer argument already.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 08, 2023, 04:16:40 AM

The oxidizer does not burn in a vacuum (inside its own tank).

Here are some more videos..

Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion



Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized



I did find it interesting, and to be open and honest, the igniters had to be sealed in.  I don’t think it has anything to do with sealing in atmosphere.  I think it was more to ensure a physical contact with fuel and oxidizer. 


Might as well add this one too..

Rocket Launch From Underwater (In 4K Slow Motion)

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.

Remember the design of most model rocket engines.

Quote

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. 

Rockets literally create their own “atmosphere to push against” by ejecting expanding gasses out the nozzles of their rocket motors. 

ohh, rockets!
Space tourism is great. The pollution is not that bad, and it invests money in furthering rocket technology so that humans can one day make full use of off world resources.

Its also stupidly easy to prove that you dont need to push off of the atmosphere to go forward. You need a reaction mass. Heavy thing (fuel) being thrown out in one direction at high speed makes you go the other direction.

DIY proof.
Get 2 similarly sized objects of vastly different mass. Such as a pillow or balloon and a bag full of books or medicine ball. Make sure they have about the same surface area that air will push against.
Get on a chair with wheels, or skateboard.

While on the chair/ skateboard, throw object 1 out, measure distance. Repeat with object 2.
Do many times over to adjust for imperfections in the test.

If "pushing against air" was the cause of motion, you would move the same distance when both objects that thrown.

ohh, rockets!
Space tourism is great. The pollution is not that bad.

https://earth.org/environmental-costs-of-space-tourism-business/

Small particles such as soot and aluminium oxides, can have a severe impact on the atmosphere. A 2010 research paper modelled the effects of soot injected into the atmosphere from a thousand private suborbital flights a year and found that it would increase the temperature over the poles by 1 degree Celsius and reduce polar sea ice levels by 5%.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I would say the pollution will vary dramatically depending on fuel being used.
If you use hydrogen, which is sustainably sourced, it could be a quite low impact.

The problem is a lot of rockets use RP-1, a kerosene based fuel, or methane, or some other polluting fuel.
The first stage of the Falcon 9 allegedly uses 150 000 L of fuel.
This is comparable to a jet airliner. Yet it takes far fewer people.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on June 06, 2023, 04:24:49 AM

ohh, rockets!
Space tourism is great. The pollution is not that bad.

https://earth.org/environmental-costs-of-space-tourism-business/

Quote

Small particles such as soot and aluminium oxides, can have a severe impact on the atmosphere. A 2010 research paper modelled the effects of soot injected into the atmosphere from a thousand private suborbital flights a year and found that it would increase the temperature over the poles by 1 degree Celsius and reduce polar sea ice levels by 5%.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Thats from Virgin galactic suborbital rocket. The only rocket that uses that fuel. New Shepard's only emission is steam. Starships only emissions are CO2, about the same as about 1.5-2 747's, except it has none of the other nasty stuff that JA1 has.

But more importantly, developing space technologies have massive future positive effects. Tourism helps with this.

Thats from Virgin galactic suborbital rocket. The only rocket that uses that fuel. New Shepard's only emission is steam. Starships only emissions are CO2, about the same as about 1.5-2 747's, except it has none of the other nasty stuff that JA1 has.

But more importantly, developing space technologies have massive future positive effects. Tourism helps with this.

While I agree regarding New Shepard, Starship runs on methane, which means it's primary exhaust will be CO2 and H2O.
However, it has a fuel rich turbine which can produce other products, including soot, and it is unclear if it the main chamber is fuel rich, oxygen rich, or a perfect ratio.

While I agree regarding New Shepard, Starship runs on methane, which means it's primary exhaust will be CO2 and H2O.
However, it has a fuel rich turbine which can produce other products, including soot, and it is unclear if it the main chamber is fuel rich, oxygen rich, or a perfect ratio.

Its probably running a bit fuel rich, as you need to prevent free oxygen from eating your engine. But it will be pretty close to perfect, cause you dont want to throw fuel overboard for nothing.
Methane does not actually have soot, thats more a RP1 issue. Methane is becoming a popular engine for reusability specifically due to the lack of soot.
There will be some level of NO2 being produced, which is a side effect of running a hot thing through the atmosphere. Burning JA1 kg for kg is much worse than burning methane.

There is no zero emission way to get into orbit, but methane is pretty clean. The cleanest orbital rocket will be the Delta H IV. As its all hydrogen (With some NO2 being produced), but it is a really expensive rocket because of it.

Methane does not actually have soot, thats more a RP1 issue. Methane is becoming a popular engine for reusability specifically due to the lack of soot.

Any hydrocarbon based fuel can produce soot if there is not enough oxygen for it to burn.
This includes methane.

It is harder for methane, with it more likely to produce carbon monoxide, due to the lack of any carbon-carbon bonds, but it can still produce soot.

There is no zero emission way to get into orbit, but methane is pretty clean. The cleanest orbital rocket will be the Delta H IV. As its all hydrogen (With some NO2 being produced), but it is a really expensive rocket because of it.

This is where space tourism may actually hurt it.
If we focus too much on craft for people, we will overlook solutions which can work for autonomous things.
And 2 extremes (which at least for now are quite impractical/impossible with current materials) would be a rail gun launch, where it very rapidly accelerates (enough to kill people) on the ground, using power from the ground, to coast a long way up towards orbit; and a space elevator, which would be powered from the ground or solar panels in space to slowly lift the item into space.
People wont want to ride in something that kills them, and wont want to wait for the space elevator.

Any hydrocarbon based fuel can produce soot if there is not enough oxygen for it to burn.
This includes methane.

It is harder for methane, with it more likely to produce carbon monoxide, due to the lack of any carbon-carbon bonds, but it can still produce soot.

Ill see if there is any detailed info on their real mix. But they will be running slightly fuel rich. With engines that run really hot, your using fuel to cool certain areas of the engine down, but your still combusting most of it at the end of the day. Im now curious how much soot it will actually create.

This is where space tourism may actually hurt it.
If we focus too much on craft for people, we will overlook solutions which can work for autonomous things.
And 2 extremes (which at least for now are quite impractical/impossible with current materials) would be a rail gun launch, where it very rapidly accelerates (enough to kill people) on the ground, using power from the ground, to coast a long way up towards orbit; and a space elevator, which would be powered from the ground or solar panels in space to slowly lift the item into space.
People wont want to ride in something that kills them, and wont want to wait for the space elevator.

Rail guns are unworkable in an atmosphere. You still need a rocket to enter orbit, otherwise its just a parabolic trajectory. And that rocket needs to survive your 1000G's you need to get to that altitude from a rail gun.
Space elevators need a magic material that does not exist.

There is my favourite none rocket solution, which is a launch loop. But this is a trillion dollar investment if the technical issues can be resolved. A launch loop evolves into a orbital ring, which can then make space elevators feasible as your in space station is a lot lower. (80km vs 30 000km cable)

But we need a solution for between now and the year 2150 when this stuff starts becoming possible. Rockets are all we have now. And every time you take a billionaires money and invest it in a space craft, you improve that technology. Starship for instance has the potential to take over 100 people to orbit at a time. But it wont get there if we dont invest in it.
If you want to build Europe's extremely ambitions space based solar beaming power, you need a lot of people in space to assemble and build it. This is how you move technology forward. A lot of the time, adoption needs to start at the higher price point until the technology becomes more well understood.

edit
Okay. apparently Methane produces zero soot.
Apparently carbon and hydrogen really have a thing for each other, so if there is no Oxygen around, they will be bonding to each other.
If methane loses a hydrogen atom, you get CH3. And if you lose another hydrogen atom you get CH2, and finally CH. These are all more stable reactions than Carbon on its own in environment when you have Hydrogen around. Even as you burn methane rich combustion , you will always have more Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules than Carbon ones, so you never have soot.

Rail guns are unworkable in an atmosphere. You still need a rocket to enter orbit, otherwise its just a parabolic trajectory. And that rocket needs to survive your 1000G's you need to get to that altitude from a rail gun.
Space elevators need a magic material that does not exist.

There is my favourite none rocket solution, which is a launch loop. But this is a trillion dollar investment if the technical issues can be resolved. A launch loop evolves into a orbital ring, which can then make space elevators feasible as your in space station is a lot lower. (80km vs 30 000km cable)

But we need a solution for between now and the year 2150 when this stuff starts becoming possible. Rockets are all we have now. And every time you take a billionaires money and invest it in a space craft, you improve that technology. Starship for instance has the potential to take over 100 people to orbit at a time. But it wont get there if we dont invest in it.
If you want to build Europe's extremely ambitions space based solar beaming power, you need a lot of people in space to assemble and build it. This is how you move technology forward. A lot of the time, adoption needs to start at the higher price point until the technology becomes more well understood.

While I agree that currently space elevators, and rail guns are impractical, the key point I was trying to say was aiming for people rating can make other options get overlooked.
So space tourism can result in options getting overlooked.

Okay. apparently Methane produces zero soot.
Apparently carbon and hydrogen really have a thing for each other, so if there is no Oxygen around, they will be bonding to each other.
If methane loses a hydrogen atom, you get CH3. And if you lose another hydrogen atom you get CH2, and finally CH. These are all more stable reactions than Carbon on its own in environment when you have Hydrogen around. Even as you burn methane rich combustion , you will always have more Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules than Carbon ones, so you never have soot.

If that was true, no hydrocarbon would produce soot.
Soot can contain hydrogen, it isn't just carbon.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0082078475804012

CH, CH2 and CH3 are not stable compounds. They will react.
For example, 2 CH fragments can react to form C2H2, which can spontaneously react with 2 other C2H2 molecules to produce benzene. And so on.

While I agree that currently space elevators, and rail guns are impractical, the key point I was trying to say was aiming for people rating can make other options get overlooked.
So space tourism can result in options getting overlooked.

Well, if space tourism was a huge part of the space industry, I may agree. But its not. Of the 30-40 odd people who get into space each year, very few of them are tourists. Its still insanely expensive.
But also, for every 1kg of space tourist you launch up, you need quite a bit of other stuff as well. And these other technologies get better feasibility if there is a higher demand up there.
I can do a pretty deep dive into this, as this is a major interest of mine. But basically, we can invest in Aluminium manufacturing on the moon, but only once you have a reasonable demand to justify it. Once you have that, you can make other space infrastructure a lot cheaper. There is a critical threshold of minimal mass required in space before we really have sustainable access to space. But its well over 1000 people a year, And tourism helps reach that minimal threshold. Once you hit that threshold, you end up sending a LOT less stuff into space, because you can get most of it from in space resources. And eventually (A lot later) we end up sending more things down to earth than up to space.

If that was true, no hydrocarbon would produce soot.
Soot can contain hydrogen, it isn't just carbon.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0082078475804012

CH, CH2 and CH3 are not stable compounds. They will react.
For example, 2 CH fragments can react to form C2H2, which can spontaneously react with 2 other C2H2 molecules to produce benzene. And so on.

"Pyrolytic dehydrogenation of the soot samples at 1000°C reduced the H/C values to 0.1."
Combustion chambers burn closer to 3000'C. From every source I can find there is no soot up to the point of the combustion chamber. As a small portion of the fuel is not combusted at the combustion chamber, Im sure its possible that some of it does turn to soot.

Not going to say they are perfectly clean, I dont think anything is.

My only claim was that rockets are not the atmospheric death machines people make them out to be, especially not at the quantities of flights every year

Well, if space tourism was a huge part of the space industry, I may agree. But its not. Of the 30-40 odd people who get into space each year, very few of them are tourists. Its still insanely expensive.
But also, for every 1kg of space tourist you launch up, you need quite a bit of other stuff as well. And these other technologies get better feasibility if there is a higher demand up there.
I can do a pretty deep dive into this, as this is a major interest of mine. But basically, we can invest in Aluminium manufacturing on the moon, but only once you have a reasonable demand to justify it. Once you have that, you can make other space infrastructure a lot cheaper. There is a critical threshold of minimal mass required in space before we really have sustainable access to space. But its well over 1000 people a year, And tourism helps reach that minimal threshold. Once you hit that threshold, you end up sending a LOT less stuff into space, because you can get most of it from in space resources. And eventually (A lot later) we end up sending more things down to earth than up to space.

I would say that depends a lot on what kind of space tourist is there.
Some, like blue origin (I think), don't actually need any in space, they just go on a sub-orbital flight.
Others, like a space station for a stay for a week (which I'm not sure tourists would actually want when they realise what that means relating to things like sleeping, showering and pooping, unless we get artificial gravity such as from a spinning station), need a lot more.
There is also the question of how much space debris this would create.

"Pyrolytic dehydrogenation of the soot samples at 1000°C reduced the H/C values to 0.1."
Combustion chambers burn closer to 3000'C. From every source I can find there is no soot up to the point of the combustion chamber. As a small portion of the fuel is not combusted at the combustion chamber, Im sure its possible that some of it does turn to soot.

Not going to say they are perfectly clean, I dont think anything is.

My only claim was that rockets are not the atmospheric death machines people make them out to be, especially not at the quantities of flights every year

The increase in temperature should help the carbonisation process.
So a higher temperature can help produce soot with less hydrogen present.
I can't find any reliable source that says they don't produce soot. Instead, all I find are just empty claims that they don't with nothing backing them up.
The chemistry behind it, and the reliable sources I can find all indicate methane produces soot.

As for how bad, that depends on how it evolves over time.
Musk wants starship launching once every 2 weeks.
At which point it would start being a serious concern. But most of that isn't from space tourism.

And it isn't simply if they are horrible, but if the extra cost is worth it.

I would say that depends a lot on what kind of space tourist is there.
Some, like blue origin (I think), don't actually need any in space, they just go on a sub-orbital flight.
Others, like a space station for a stay for a week (which I'm not sure tourists would actually want when they realise what that means relating to things like sleeping, showering and pooping, unless we get artificial gravity such as from a spinning station), need a lot more.
There is also the question of how much space debris this would create.

The new age of reusable rockets, there is no additional space debris created per launch. 95% of the man made space debris is from the old gov defence launches.

And there are 2 new space stations currently planned to go up soon. Orbital reef and Axiom, a part of it (not primary from what I can tell) is to serve tourism.
Before 2030, I think there will be at minimal 4 stations in orbit at various stages of completion. excluding the ISS which will be deorbiting soon after this.

The increase in temperature should help the carbonisation process.
So a higher temperature can help produce soot with less hydrogen present.
I can't find any reliable source that says they don't produce soot. Instead, all I find are just empty claims that they don't with nothing backing them up.
The chemistry behind it, and the reliable sources I can find all indicate methane produces soot.

As for how bad, that depends on how it evolves over time.
Musk wants starship launching once every 2 weeks.
At which point it would start being a serious concern. But most of that isn't from space tourism.

And it isn't simply if they are horrible, but if the extra cost is worth it.

The very reason why Methane is used as a fuel for reusable rockets is because they dont produce soot, making reusability better.
Soot coats engine parts making reusability harder.
Im going to go with the rocket scientists on this one.

The new age of reusable rockets, there is no additional space debris created per launch. 95% of the man made space debris is from the old gov defence launches.

There is still plenty.
The "reusable" rockets, are still normally just the first stage, or possibly also a capsule.
The second stage, which actually gets it into orbit isn't reused.
Who knows what it will be like if Starship works and is viable.

But even without the rocket itself causing debris, there is the issue of the payload, including what happens once it is no longer usuable.

The very reason why Methane is used as a fuel for reusable rockets is because they dont produce soot, making reusability better.
Soot coats engine parts making reusability harder.
Im going to go with the rocket scientists on this one.

It isn't that it doesn't produce soot, it is that it produces less.
I will stick with the science, rather than the entirely empty claims.

There is still plenty.
The "reusable" rockets, are still normally just the first stage, or possibly also a capsule.
The second stage, which actually gets it into orbit isn't reused.
Who knows what it will be like if Starship works and is viable.

But even without the rocket itself causing debris, there is the issue of the payload, including what happens once it is no longer usuable.

NewGlen is working on full reuse.
Stokes areospace is working on second stage reuse
and of course, Starship 2nd stage is going to be reused.
Currently almost all second stages return to point nemo.
Again, its just the gov stuff that does not actually need to, because they dont need FAA approval.

Almost all modern payloads have to have a orbital debris plan baked in. As in, what happens to the end of the sat life. Most either return or go to a graveyard orbit beyond GEO orbit.

There is a lot of junk up there, but the last 20 or so years of space flight have actually been more serious than the previous 50 in getting orbit clean.

It isn't that it doesn't produce soot, it is that it produces less.
I will stick with the science, rather than the entirely empty claims.

"Oxygen/methane provides better performance compared to storable propellant combination and oxygen with other hydrocarbons, but it still gives poorer performance than oxygen/hydrogen. Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, such as kerosene (RP-1), it has lower density and gives higher performance when associated to liquid oxygen. Moreover, it is characterized by less soot and coke deposition in the thrust chamber and inside the cooling channels, respectively."

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74323471.pdf

"Neither methane nor liquefied natural gas (LNG) produces soot when burned in turbine simulator with liquid oxygen under conditions like those in gas-generator section of rocket engine. Experiments conducted to determine if these fuels behave similarly to other hydrocarbon fuels, which give off soot coating turbomachinery and reducing performance."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19920000461

Again. Ill trust the rocket scientists with this one. They have done the science.

Clay. We are still using earthenware, and you think somehow our civilization is sophisticated enough to get into space.

We can't even fire most weapons past the horizon. They say it has to do with some invisible curvature thing. But it's because they suck. You see, without curvature being invoked, most pistols and rifles don't even reach the horizon. Meanwhile, radio waves, ballistic missiles, and even things like smoke can travel well beyond the horizon. As we speak, my area has smoke from Canada that is being blamed on "climate change". Actually, it is the same reckless forestry practiced by California, the woke practice of not taking care of undergrowth until the entire area dries up.  No curvature prevented its motion.

Your weapons just suck. Your technology just sucks. Still using clay in your weapons. That's just a pellet with rather crude fuel system.

"Oxygen/methane provides better performance compared to storable propellant combination and oxygen with other hydrocarbons, but it still gives poorer performance than oxygen/hydrogen. Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, such as kerosene (RP-1), it has lower density and gives higher performance when associated to liquid oxygen. Moreover, it is characterized by less soot and coke deposition in the thrust chamber and inside the cooling channels, respectively."

Notice the key word? LESS. Not none, LESS!

It is saying methane produces LESS soot, not no soot.

"Neither methane nor liquefied natural gas (LNG) produces soot when burned in turbine simulator with liquid oxygen under conditions like those in gas-generator section of rocket engine. Experiments conducted to determine if these fuels behave similarly to other hydrocarbon fuels, which give off soot coating turbomachinery and reducing performance."

A simulator, under conditions "LIKE" those in a gas-generator.
Not inside the main combustion chamber of the rocket itself, or even simulating that.
And stating experiments conducted, with no discussion of the results of those experiments.

Again. Ill trust the rocket scientists with this one. They have done the science.

And that science shows methane produces less soot, not no soot.

Clay. We are still using earthenware, and you think somehow our civilization is sophisticated enough to get into space.

Yes, clay is a fairly useful resources.
It's use doesn't mean we can't get to space.
But that is a toy engine.

We can't even fire most weapons past the horizon.

Yes we can, just not simple rifles which rely upon the person firing it to see the target.

No.

Remember that battleship model where it had to arc up? It's because in order to launch your crude pea shooters over to the next battleship, you need to generate loft.

I have to do the same thing with a bow and arrow in BotW. Only at the arrow age, this wasn't excused as curvature. They knew their weapons had a kinetic energy limit thanks to the limits of human strength.

I have a pretty good idea of how far the arrow shoots based on this model, and I don't ever excuse my failure to hit something on gravity or curvature. It's range. Newton is wrong, objects in motion do not stay in motion. The arrow in flight has upward momentum and forward momentum, when you fire it in an arc. Then it runs out of kinetic energy, upward momentum goes pffft, heavier than air so it starts to fall, forward momentum continues to decrease but as it is heavier than air it continues to sink. The arc either finishes with it in the ground at a depth based on remaining momentum, or with it hitting an object (or person or animal) and either becoming embedded or lacking force enough to penetrate.

Objects in motion always halt.

Projectiles fall to ground, hit something, or run out of propellants. You cannot keep running forever, you get out of breath. Vampires that don't need to breathe still must stop for a bite. Cars need to stop for gas or electric, and even if you got an engine to keep running It would overheat or the cylinders will break down. What world was Newton living in that he came up with this fanciful theory?!?
Momentum is a thing, but until he came up with this staying in motion crap, it was well understood that it is extremely difficult to launch an object beyond the horizon due to the need for continuous propulsion. Launching things into space is an entirely different order of magnitude.

You don't understand orders of magnitude (or you're willfully ignorant), or you would understand that our best airships (until they tell crap about spaceships) can go about 80,000 ft up. When we divide this by miles, this is about 15 miles up. Outer space is is about 62 miles up, through progressively thinner atmosphere. That's nearly 50 miles where ignition somehow has to stay ignited while an extremely heavy rocket (read up on the failure of jetpacks, and how the heavier an object is, the more it must fight its own weight) has to stay oxidized in order to exit. But you see, once it exits, things don't actually get easier. The thinner the air, the lighter an object must be (or the more propulsion it requires) to stay in flight. Now, it has to be lighter than nothing, has no medium to push against, and has to continue to ignite in a vacuum for a prolonged time. And this is when all other aircrafts demonstrably have failed to go beyond 80,000 feet and humans can't breathe beyond about 20,000 ft so the craft needs air in addition to oxidizers. This is added weight, and added risk of an internal explosion.

https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/09/17/irrefutable-scientific-proof-iss-footage-is-fraudulent/

These people aren't even flat Earthers and they believe in gravity, and still they know something about all this is fake. I'd tell you to wake up and understand you're tricked, but you're clearly part of the great lie.

No.

Remember that battleship model where it had to arc up? It's because in order to launch your crude pea shooters over to the next battleship, you need to generate loft.

I have to do the same thing with a bow and arrow in BotW. Only at the arrow age, this wasn't excused as curvature. They knew their weapons had a kinetic energy limit thanks to the limits of human strength.

I have a pretty good idea of how far the arrow shoots based on this model, and I don't ever excuse my failure to hit something on gravity or curvature. It's range. Newton is wrong, objects in motion do not stay in motion. The arrow in flight has upward momentum and forward momentum, when you fire it in an arc. Then it runs out of kinetic energy, upward momentum goes pffft, heavier than air so it starts to fall, forward momentum continues to decrease but as it is heavier than air it continues to sink. The arc either finishes with it in the ground at a depth based on remaining momentum, or with it hitting an object (or person or animal) and either becoming embedded or lacking force enough to penetrate.

None of that supports your BS. And you have even managed to refute yourself.
Current weapons CAN shoot over the curvature of Earth.
Modern artillery can shoot over 30 km away.
Cruise missiles can fly a quite long distance.
ICBMS can travel around the world.

And your garbage is also wrong (or at least very misleading).
No one has ever claimed the issue is the curvature of Earth.
The issue is the velocity.
For a ballistic trajectory, the distance travelled is based upon the horizontal velocity and the vertical velocity.
The greater the vertical velocity the longer it will take to hit the ground. The greater the horizontal velocity the further it will travel in that time.

It isn't that the bullets magically slow down and stop, it is that gravity is pulling towards Earth and their sub-orbital velocity will cause them to crash into Earth.
e.g. if we ignore the curvature, then a bullet fired from a height of 2 m, level to the ground, fired at 350 m/s (roughly the speed of sound), will take roughly 0.64 s to hit the ground, and in that time it will travel 224 m.

But if instead of that, you fire it up at an angle of 45 degrees, then the vertical component of its velocity is 248 m/s, meaning it would now take 51 s to hit the ground.
Its horizontal velocity is reduced to 248 m/s as well, but the greater time means it can go 12 501 m.

Even you accept that, that you need to aim it up to go further.

If your delusional garbage was true, and the problem was that it just stopped, then aiming it up wouldn't help at all.
What causes the bullet to stop is gravity pulling it to Earth, with it colliding with Earth (or something else in the way).
It is NOT it merely running out of kinetic energy.

So gravity is the reason.

Projectiles fall to ground, hit something, or run out of propellants. You cannot keep running forever, you get out of breath. Vampires that don't need to breathe still must stop for a bite. Cars need to stop for gas or electric, and even if you got an engine to keep running It would overheat or the cylinders will break down. What world was Newton living in that he came up with this fanciful theory?!?
Momentum is a thing, but until he came up with this staying in motion crap, it was well understood that it is extremely difficult to launch an object beyond the horizon due to the need for continuous propulsion. Launching things into space is an entirely different order of magnitude.

Again, a simple bike destroys this BS of yours.

If your BS was true, and it was simply running out of energy, then it shouldn't matter if you were riding a bike, or if you were carrying it; you would take the same effort to go at the same speed and travel the same distance. No one would EVER use a push bike, as all it would do is add dead weight.
But anyone who has ridden a bike knows that isn't the case at all.
Anyone who has ridden a bike knows it is much easier to go faster and further when riding a bike.
This is due to differences in the motion of the bike, vs you.
A human needs to continually accelerate their legs to walk, but you can coast on a bike.
And when coasting, you will keep going with just wind resistance and various bits of friction and rolling resistance slowing you down.

So Newton was living in the real world, where you need a force to slow things down; rather than your delusional fantasy land where things just stop for no reason at all.

You don't understand orders of magnitude (or you're willfully ignorant), or you would understand that our best airships (until they tell crap about spaceships) can go about 80,000 ft up.

It has nothing to do with orders of magnitude.
What matters is how it is moving.

A plane travels quite slowly (compared to a rocket).
It uses its wings to generate lift to stay up.
This causes drag which would slow it down.
This also means it needs the air to push off.

They also typically use the air as their oxidiser, limiting their altitude.

Conversely, a craft in orbit around Earth is in orbit. Gravity does still pull it towards Earth, but instead of causing it to crash into Earth, this curves its path to make it orbit.

That's nearly 50 miles where ignition somehow has to stay ignited

There is no "somehow" about it.
It has the fuel and oxidiser which is injected into the combustion chamber. Quite simple. No issues at all.

The thinner the air, the lighter an object must be (or the more propulsion it requires) to stay in flight.

Only if you are using wings for lift.
So wrong again.

has no medium to push against

It is only in your fantasy (and the fantasy of others like you) that rockets need something to push off.
See the exhaust coming out?
That is gas being pushed away from the rocket, which in turn pushes the rocket.
That is all it needs.

And this is when all other aircrafts demonstrably have failed

Because they are aircraft, not spacecraft.
They are craft designed to operate in air.
As such, it shouldn't be surprising they fail.

These people aren't even flat Earthers and they believe in gravity, and still they know something about all this is fake.

No, they don't know. They are just asserting delusional BS like you.

And that science shows methane produces less soot, not no soot.

I did not say it produces no soot. I just said its way cleaner and not as bad as other fuels. Especially considering that soot is bad for reusability, and you dont want soot deposit in your engine. Also, rocket engines get pretty close to whats theoretically possible, they tend to be super efficient. Seems we are not really in a disagreement here though.

Clay

We also still use fire, and the cavemen used fire. I suppose you think that means we are still only as advanced as cavemen. Also, why are you showing us a solid rocket motor engine part. Those are for hobbyists, they are meant to be cheap.

Objects in motion always halt.

So why does the sun and moon move overhead?
Why have they not stopped moving?

Jack, I have a certain amount of respect for you in trying to answer all that drivel.