Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[Newsbender]

On July 20, 2021, Jeff Bezos and his merry band - "Mark Bezos, his brother, Wally Funk, an 82-year-old pioneer of the space race , and an 18-year-old student" - allegedly made a short trip into space in Bezo's suspiciously-shaped, risibly top-heavy rocket, the New Shepard.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSa15E077fc

At 3:18 in, the commentator says "unreal".... I couldn't have put it better myself. It looks like another typical bad CGI fest to me, with the exception that this time the rocket looks even more phallic than usual - a fact that has not gone unnoticed by many YouTubers, who have drawn comparisons with the famous double entendre rocket scene in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDt5moeu4_c

The open mockery and archaic, bizarre sense of humor of the Nutwork continues.

If this was such an historic event, why was there no cockpit camera showing Bezos? Could it simply be that multi-billionaires value their privacy? Or could it be because the whole thing was completely fabricated and that would have been too difficult to fake? (all rhetorical questions, naturally).

There are some very strange CGI glitches going on in these shots as the men with "the wrong stuff" board their ludicrous vessel:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFsHPLzGDSE

UPDATE: there IS video of Bezos in the cockpit. Submitted without words:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dwfx8IdMds

[nokidding]

In contrast Richard Branson's effort looked genuine. It's a kind of tacit admission that all manned orbit missions are fake, because if not the whole Virgin Galactic enterprise would be too trivial to bother with. Branson's 86 Km altitude (still below the Harman Kardon line) may be a record if Alan Shepard's 160 Km was faked. He cocked a snoot.

I like to think that Alan Shepard's Mercury flight was real, the limit and the last genuine mission, but who can ever know when everything that followed was lies.

[memoryhole]

UPDATE: there IS video of Bezos in the cockpit. Submitted without words:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dwfx8IdMds

My favourite part of the last video is between 1:08 and 1:12 when a floating skittle bounces off the window and magically accelerates and then decelerates again. Reminded me of "Some Birds".

[simonshack]

There are some very strange CGI glitches going on in these shots as the men with "the wrong stuff" board their ludicrous vessel:

Oh my gosh - that ain't Bezos boarding the Big Dick, 'tis bloody Breivik! They're all gonna die!



viewtopic.php?p=2386599&sid=d1a908b88ff ... 1#p2386599

[pov603]

Almost like this even…

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJFog1vE6Ck

[Newsbender]

I like to think that Alan Shepard's Mercury flight was real, the limit and the last genuine mission, but who can ever know when everything that followed was lies.

And if it wasn't real, then the New Shepard would be a wonderfully apt name for a rocket pulling the same old scam again - wouldn't it? (Of course, the same could also be said if both were real.)

[simonshack]

I like to think that Alan Shepard's Mercury flight was real, the limit and the last genuine mission, but who can ever know when everything that followed was lies.

I'd say that's some wishful thinking, dear nokidding...

Chris Kraft ("NASA Mercury flight control" manager) - at 6:30 into this short NASA movie:
"You couldn't have told the difference between a flight and a simulation." https://youtu.be/etWdJoXrajA?t=392



NASA = A HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION FOR TV VIEWERS - ever since Day1 - and from A to Z.

[glg]

[simonshack]

*

"Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?"


Dear Cluesforum members and readers,

On May 25, 2022 this important thread ("Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?") will celebrate its 9th Anniversary - and will soon reach 1 million views.

I dare say that our collective intellectual efforts have determined - beyond reasonable doubt - that rocketry can certainly NOT work beyond the Earth's atmosphere. I hereby wish to warmly thank all of the most acute and articulate contributors to this most important exposure which, of course, spells the end of NASA's credibility - and of all their complicit space agencies around the world.

I also dare say that our longstanding investigations - here at Cluesforum - to expose the GSTH (the Great Space Travel Hoax) have been of the 'pioneering' kind, so let's be proud of this and hope that future historians will give us some credit for it! To be sure, back in 2013 (as this very thread "came to life"), there was - to my knowledge - hardly ANY discussion to be found on the internets regarding the fact that rockets cannot travel beyond our Earth's atmosphere. In later years though, I've kept bumping into some fine writings (at various websites & in the social media ) in support of our findings.

For instance, here's an excellent, no-nonsense comment (by a Youtube user, "Dr. David Banner F.E.S.") which succinctly expounds why rockets will not move in space:

"I think its easier just to see it as water under pressure inside of an object, and then a valve is opened allowing that water to escape. In atmosphere the water first in line to escape is immediately slowed down due to the resistance the atmosphere has on its path of travel. So the water now coming out of the object runs into the slower moving water which exited first, and pushes it out of the way, and provides a thrust or force to push the object in the other direction, because the object itself has something coming out of it, that is pushing other stuff out its way.

In space this cannot be, because the water coming out of the object never gets slowed down by an atmospheric pressure....space doesn't offer any resistance to it's path of travel exiting the object. So the water first in line to leave the object is moving at exactly the same speed as the water currently leaving the object, and so the water currently leaving the object never encounters slower moving water to push out of the way, and so the object doesn't have any forward thrust....Because it doesn't have anything coming out of it that is pushing anything out its way. That simple.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs

The above comment by Dr. David Banner inspired me today to make the below graphic which, as always, I invite allcomers to try and disprove.



The funniest thing is that, when NASA advocates claim that rockets "push on their own fuel", they are actually (almost) correct! Indeed, rockets do push on their own fuel - but only when it impacts air molecules in the atmosphere!

It is high time for everyone to realize and accept the fact that the 'Hollywood department' known as "NASA" has been fooling this planet's population ever since its inception (in 1958). It should thus come as no surprise that NASA's very first director (i.e. T. Keith Glennan) was a former studio manager at the Paramount and the Samuel Goldwyn cinema studios: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1735

[simonshack]

*

CAN ROCKETS MOVE IN THE VOID OF SPACE?


Imagine a man (let's call him '"Joe") rowing in a rowing boat full of wine barrels. Joe is struggling to move upstream on a river moving downhill towards the sea. His arms apply a force on the oars which, of course, is transmitted to the water. We may compare the force of the river's flow (against which our Joe is "fighting" against) to the Earth's gravity. Joe is an extremely strong man, but he is only making slow progress due to the mighty force of the river's flow - yet he plunges his oars in the water as deep as he can in order to move upstream. All of a sudden, Joe falls backwards and loses his oars.



Fortunately, on the river bank, a rocket scientist is watching the scene. As he notices Joe's distress, he shouts to him: "THROW YOUR BARRELS OUT OF THE BACK OF THE BOAT AS FAST AS YOU CAN - AND YOU WILL KEEP MOVING FORWARD AS FAST AS BEFORE!"... Well, you might laugh at this little saga, dear readers - but this is precisely what NASA is telling us: their rockets do not push against air (just like oars push on water). Instead, rockets supposedly escape from the Earth's gravity - moving at hypersonic speeds - just by throwing mass out of their back. This ejected mass, they tell us, transmits an 'equal and opposite' (action>reaction) recoil force onto the rocket, thus propelling it at hypersonic speeds - even in the absence of atmosphere. And yes, most people actually believe in this silly and outlandish fairy tale!

I will be patiently wating for anyone willing to argue that my above example is 'not comparable' to the notion of the concept of rocket propulsion (in the void of space) - as claimed by NASA. How about our old forum member "Heiwa" (a.k.a. Anders Björkman) - who still believes that rockets can propel themselves in the void of space?

[Discumbobulate]

The scientific theory of whether a rocket engine would produce thrust in a vacuum was answered by James Joules 1843 experiment as pointed out correctly by several posters.

I'd like to present the engineering principles , which tie into this experiment , which I haven't come across whist reading through the thread.

The rocket engine is the most inefficient of the various types of internal combustion engines - surprised me when I first learnt of that at tech college many years ago.

Internal combustion engines take the thermal energy produced by chemical reaction (fuel burn) and through mechanical means convert thermal energy to kinetic energy. In the case of automotive engines the combustion takes place in a closed chamber or valve and the expansion of the hot gases push against a piston which in turn drive a camshaft to produce kinetic energy.

In the case of a rocket engine the fuel burn must encounter a resistance at the exit nozzle to enable the thermal energy to create the reactive force of thrust. The atmosphere, or the launchpad, is the equivalent of the piston.

So rocket thrust is entirely dependant on the hot mass flow encountering a resistance to produce kinetic energy . No resistance = no thrust = no kinetic motion.

All this ties in with Newtons laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics.

The amount of thrust produced by a rocket in the atmosphere is dependant on the outer atmospheric pressure and the area of exit nozzle. Directly proportional acting according to the inverse square law , if I recall correctly, an atmospheric pressure decrease of 1/2 result in a decrease of thrust to 1/4 unless the nozzle area changes.

Sorry if this has already been posted by others , it may have and I just haven't come across it yet.

Nasa rocket equation is maths trickery.

[kalliste]

I think the rocket engineers have a bit of explaining to do entirely based on what they say: the whole thing about the nozzle having to change depending on the atmospheric pressure. If a rocket engine really is a "reaction engine" and it's all about the velocity and mass of the stuff it's throwing out the back then what does the nozzle really matter. There's no logic to worrying about the nozzle. It's all about the speed you can deliver the combustible mixture to the combustion chamber and set fire to it and eject the hot gasses out the hole or in the case of nuclear thermal how hot you can get the gas coming out of the reactor. The size of the hole you're throwing the stuff out of might be an issue but what's a nozzle got to do with it. Worrying about the nozzle only matters if it's standing in for a piston in an internal combustion engine. They're busted by their tomfoolery with rocket nozzles.

[kalliste]

Now I've found somewhere claiming jet engines are "reaction engines" as well as rocket engines and that an afterburner creates "extra thrust" by heating up the exhaust of the primary part of the engine:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/trans ... ion374.htm
But then Wikipedia have to go and spoil it all with their exposition of how a turbofan engine works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
...which manages to produce a method of working that directly contradicts itself in the text, claiming that the high velocity of the exhaust represents wasted energy whilst at the same time saying it's the exhaust that creates the thrust.

It seems they've had to rewrite how the jet engine works to protect their precious rocket engines. My contention is that jet engines are essentially high speed fans that pull the aircraft through the air by reaction against the blades. Increasing the velocity of the exhaust will let it pull more air through the fans. Turbofans work more fuel efficiently because they're pushing against a greater mass of air.

As for the stuff about water jets and hoses, when someone is wrestling with a hose it's about the hydraulic pressure inside the pipe working on the walls of the tube not about what's squirting out the end. The guy standing on a jet of water from the hose is another misdirection - the water pressure in the hose is making the hose rigid: you could make an arrangement where the hoses were squirting out the top and he was hanging off the side of the hose(s). Think about those advertising thingies that blow air through a tube of fabric to understand what I mean or find a high pressure hose and mess with it. Water jet boats have impellers that are pushing against the water same a jet turbine fans and aircraft propellers, the stuff coming out the end isn't doing the pushing.

Then we have ramjets in case you think I've forgotten. They're like rocket engines, an internal combustion engine with the nozzle end acting in lieu of a piston but they use atmospheric oxygen as the fuel oxidizer. Actually when you get into ramjets and scramjets there are shock waves inside the engine to consider in the combustion cycle so I expect they are a somewhat more complicated thing to get working in spite of the apparent simplicity of construction. Somebody should probably ask the rocket scientists why, if force equals mass times velocity with some foo factors due to the mass of the rocket going down due to the expulsion of fuel, a ramjet and a scramjet need any fuel at all once they get up to speed.

[Discumbobulate]

Hi kalliste, the point I was making about the rocket nozzle is that it is just basically an exhaust pipe - its open to the atmosphere or vacuum. The only way to convert thermal energy of the fuel burn is to provide a means for conversion to kinetic energy. Vacuum conditions provide no means for converting thermal to kinetic energy.

It doesn't matter how hot the gas is , it's just thermal energy and will remains so until a resistance to it's flow out of the nozzle encounters a mechanism for conversion to kinetic energy - atmosphere or a solid surface. All it does in the supposed vacuum of space is expand without providing any thrust , maybe raise the temperature by a miniscule amount.

The jet engine also works by converting thermal energy to kinetic. Not really looked into those since they don't pretend to use those in outside the atmosphere.

It seems to me that the term "internal combustion" engine has been quietly shoved aside by the controlling buffoons , introducing instead the term "reaction" engines . Muddy the waters so to speak, however the thermal energy always has to convert to kinetic to provide thrust . Thermal energy cannot thrust upon itself although it may warm things up a bit.

That is the basic scientific or engineering principle that prevents the rocket engine working in a vacuum.

[kalliste]

Somebody should probably ask the rocket scientists why, if force equals mass times velocity with some foo factors due to the mass of the rocket going down due to the expulsion of fuel, a ramjet and a scramjet need any fuel at all once they get up to speed.

By which I meant to say the ramjet working by expulsion of high velocity gas surely by this argument a tube with one end constricted and the larger end traveling forwards would continue on forever in perpetual motion because the high velocity air out the narrow end would push it as per rocket equation. In fact this isn't the case because a ramjet/scramjet is an internal combustion engine not a "reaction engine."