Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[brianv]

^Simples. The pressure in the container is greater than the pressure outside...

Now in contrast, my son along with his fellow pupils visited a certain planetarium/observatory here in Ireland about two years ago ( I did mean to post at the time but was afraid my son could have been identified). They got to see a video of the Wavy Flag Moon Sequence, and without any prompting from me..."Dad, it looked fake as feck!". Moving on, then they got to watch Koko the fucking Clown for about 60 minutes pulling balloons out of his ass. Finally they got to play some stupid game on a 10 year old PC. "Daaad, it was crap".

But son, did you not get a visual tour of the Planets on a big screen or some sort of VR setup?

Nope, nothing like that. Just what I told you.

[dblitz]

Then why does a gas balloon burst in a vacuum chamber?

...the ball would eventually fail at its weakest point and it would blow apart.

We are not talking about stretchy rubber things we are talking about metal fuel tanks. For a container with flexible walls the pressure will attempt to equalize by changing the size and shape of the container, thereby reducing the density of the gas. This does not apply to fuel tanks. In a strong enough container, no matter how far up you go, the pressure remains constant. There is no increase in internal pressure as external pressure drops.

How is a container which is actively releasing fuel going to be airtight?

Airtight, slight leak, major leak, controlled exhaust; all these scenarios result in the same pressure or a decrease in pressure, not an increase.

As I see it, and I think I'm making sense, the only difference a reduction in external air pressure will have on the strength of a pressurized container is the loss of whatever force was imparted to the surface of the container by atmospheric pressure at surface. This loss would make little difference to the strength of a properly engineered container. Pressure at surface is only 14.7 psi, while a weak high-pressure hose can give 5000 psi and its not exploding. I think a fuel tank that can survive the vacuum is feasible.



Edit: Clarity.

[Flabbergasted]

In a strong enough container, no matter how far up you go, the pressure remains constant.

In a certain sense, yes. What changes in the metal fuel tank is not the absolute pressure, but the relative pressure. For example, the difference between the inside and the outside pressure may change from 10x to 1000x. In that sense, it is comparable to an increase.

Rigid or stretchy, it´s simply a matter of reaching the point where the resistance of the container is overcome. With the necessary information at hand, you could calculate how thick/strong a container (or the windows of the iSS) would have to be to withstand the "suctional force" of near-absolute space vacuum.

[hoi.polloi]

Then why does a gas balloon burst in a vacuum chamber?

...the ball would eventually fail at its weakest point and it would blow apart.

We are not talking about stretchy rubber things we are talking about metal fuel tanks. For a container with flexible walls the pressure will attempt to equalize by changing the size and shape of the container, thereby reducing the density of the gas. This does not apply to fuel tanks. In a strong enough container, no matter how far up you go, the pressure remains constant. There is no increase in internal pressure as external pressure drops.

Are you sure about that?

Isn't "flexible" relative? Is there truly no increase in internal pressure as external pressure drops? Or do you mean to say that the internal pressure's increase cannot effectively change the flexibility of the container?

I thought pressure equalization was pretty basic physics.

[The_White_Lodge]

As the recent NASA fakery discussions have been getting more technical, I would like to introduce the NASA Technical Reports Server, a wealth of documentation about non-existent technologies and the imaginary engineering that would explain how they worked if they did exist.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=cr ... NTRS%29%22

The scope of this documentation alone may suggest quite a bit about how NASA is structured as an organization. I have met people who have worked on the "technical side" of organizations like NASA and other operations of the military-industrial complex and they all seem to be completely oblivious that their jobs are literally fake work. There is a lot that I wish to say about this with regards to left-right brain disassociation, but I will save that for another thread, however what I will say relevant to this discussion is that the purely technical approach to disproving NASA using numbers and formulas only is likely to fail since they have invented their own labyrinth of fake science to explain everything.

I'm sure somewhere in that library they have a few documents with formulas and equations dictating how a fuel tank is able to be engineered so that it does not explode in a vacuum, and were one to think that the formulas and equations themselves were the reality and that they can be used with utter abandon and liberality they might get lost in that illusion and believe it.

[patrix]

The purely technical approach to disproving NASA using numbers and formulas only is likely to fail since they have invented their own labyrinth of fake science to explain everything.

Dear WL,

I would say their main goal during the 20th century has been to turn science into religion and boy have they been successful. They hate science because its core message is that we should believe in our objective reality - what we can observe and confirm by experiments. So through media, bullshit science and the nuclear and space saga they have made the world instead believe in their reality/religion. And if they control our reality, they feel that they control us.

So I would say the way forward is to tirelessly call them out on their bullshit like Simon's been doing for more than a decade now. Less than two years ago, I was convinced the Moon Landings was real and that 9/11 happened like the media said. I've never been much into conspiracies and critical thinking. But here I am. Firmly convinced by Simons and the other fine researchers here and through my own observations and reasoning that there's no way the Earth can revolve around the Sun because it's simply a geometrical impossibility. And if I can wake up, so can others.

So let's introduce people to real science, where a formula/theory cannot be disproved by observations and experiments and still be held as true. Joule-Thomson disproved rockets in vacuum in the 19th century. Explain to as many as possible why that is as I have to relatives, friends, colleagues and internet strangers. And some day we might drag humanity out of this rabbit hole that's been digged for many centuries.

[dblitz]

Are you sure about that?

Isn't "flexible" relative? Is there truly no increase in internal pressure as external pressure drops? Or do you mean to say that the internal pressure's increase cannot effectively change the flexibility of the container?

I thought pressure equalization was pretty basic physics.

I know, it seems to make sense at first. When I first read white_lodge's post I assumed he was correct and that the internal pressure would become explosive in the near-vacuum. But I thought on it for a while, searched around a bit and consulted a friend who is a structural engineer and realised I was wrong.

The things is, equalisation only occurs when there is interaction between the pressure zones, as in the case of a slow leak, or when the container is flexible enough to allow the gas inside to either expand or be further compressed. The vacuum cant 'see' the condition of the gas inside the tank, it doesn't know to 'suck harder' as height increases. It just sees it as another surface. Think of pressure like coldness. There is no such thing as coldness, just less and less heat. The near vacuum still has some pressure to it, however minuscule, it only seems to us like a sucking force because of all those scenes where the person gets sucked out of the spaceship window or whatever.

[simonshack]

patrix,

Do you mean the Joule-Thomson effect? I did some reading on it but its over my head for now. Could you explain how it relates to rocketry? I searched the forum and came up with nothing.

Dear dblitz, you may read about the Joule-Thomson effect in the very first post of this thread, courtesy of its OP - Boethius:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2384856#p2384856

[Nathan Draco]

The purely technical approach to disproving NASA using numbers and formulas only is likely to fail since they have invented their own labyrinth of fake science to explain everything.

Dear WL,

I would say their main goal during the 20th century has been to turn science into religion and boy have they been successful. They hate science because its core message is that we should believe in our objective reality - what we can observe and confirm by experiments. So through media, bullshit science and the nuclear and space saga they have made the world instead believe in their reality/religion. And if they control our reality, they feel that they control us.

So I would say the way forward is to tirelessly call them out on their bullshit like Simon's been doing for more than a decade now. Less than two years ago, I was convinced the Moon Landings was real and that 9/11 happened like the media said. I've never been much into conspiracies and critical thinking. But here I am. Firmly convinced by Simons and the other fine researchers here and through my own observations and reasoning that there's no way the Earth can revolve around the Sun because it's simply a geometrical impossibility. And if I can wake up, so can others.

So let's introduce people to real science, where a formula/theory cannot be disproved by observations and experiments and still be held as true. Joule-Thomson disproved rockets in vacuum in the 19th century. Explain to as many as possible why that is as I have to relatives, friends, colleagues and internet strangers. And some day we might drag humanity out of this rabbit hole that's been digged for many centuries.

Not knocking the idea by any means but how did you come to the conclusion that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun or really what I should say is that the heliocentric model isn't "correct" I guess.

Like is there a topic on here I could get pointed to in order to read up that?

again, by no means is this me taking a shot at you or anything, I just wanna be convinced too. Completely open to the idea.

[patrix]

Not knocking the idea by any means but how did you come to the conclusion that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun or really what I should say is that the heliocentric model isn't "correct" I guess.

Like is there a topic on here I could get pointed to in order to read up that?

again, by no means is this me taking a shot at you or anything, I just wanna be convinced too. Completely open to the idea.

I've been fortunate since I'm helping Simon building a digital planetarium based on his model, but read the archived SSSS thread here on the forum, listen to the latest Clues Chronicles podcast and make only one wish to Santa this year - That Simon finishes his book. His goal is to release it during next year.

[sharpstuff]

Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?
__________________________________

I have read this thread from the beginning but the title of this (thread) has always bothered me.

Does Rocketry Work in 'The Vacuum' The 'the vacuum' worries me.

We have three notions:

1. Rocketry
2. Work
3. Vacuum

Before we even start, we must define, with verifiable evidence, what these elements are in a 'draw-me-a-picture' scenario.

1. What exactly (as far as possible) is rocketry?
2. What exactly is 'work' (without the nonsensical 'mathematics')?
3. What is a 'vacuum'?

1. To a simple soul, such as myself, a 'rocket' goes 'whoosh!' up into the sky (technical note: atmosphere) having burnt all its fuel in one burst, it travels as far as that 'burst' allows (within what we call 'atmosphere'), then falls on some-one's garden (somewhere) and that is the end of it. (At least on U.K. 'bonfire-night' on November 5th).
To be frivolous, I see no evidence of a robotic 'pedal-to-the-metal' of the alleged acceleration of 'modern' rockets.

2. Work is something one does (or it does, whatever that 'it' is) to move forward into one's existence to be able to contemplate another move which we call 'forwards'. Thus the 'universe' (or whatever medium we live in) is pulled from what we call 'past' into what we call the 'future'.

3. A 'vacuum' cannot exist. If it did, nothing would be here to contemplate. The definition of 'vacuum' is 'a space devoid of matter'.

Clearly, any space (something into which one can place something else of comparable size) must contain something.

We have been side-tracked into regarding that which is outside our sensual apparatuses as human animals, that 'space' is what we might read in what are called 'Science-fiction' stories and novels as a'substance into which we can place objects of our making'.

It must be clear that the 'universe', whatever it may be, is a medium from which all activity is apparent and is an analogue not a digital 'construction'. It is continuous and infinite. It is almost positively iiterative. It contains no discrete objects (atomic particles, germs and so forth). Life is a manifestation of an environment which we can only try to conceive for our own purposes of survival.

If we cannot get beyond our biological atmosphere (except in thought), then anything regarding the beyond of our atmosphere is pure conjecture.

The notion of what is 'up there' is purely (and interestingly, of course) pure conjecture, and any thesaurus of words pertaining thereto.

The human mind will always conjecture what it does not understand, it is part of the survival mechanism for humankind; it is called extrapolation.

Please feel free to correct me on any points.

[hoi.polloi]

I appreciate your deeper thoughts on this matter. Actually, if you read this full thread you will see that Flabbergasted, brianv and many others have also brought this up. Of course "space" is contentious now that we've effectively eliminated the bogus circular "proofs" that come from fake data.

We admins/moderators really hope this thread is not about being totally side-tracked, but in fact does bring up some of those intellectual issues with "outer space", while also maintaining the specific "problem" that NASA explicitly claims is not a problem, and lies about on a regular basis.

So, in sum, I think that we all hope you will appreciate our work, even though we also see the very deep irony of using NASA's phony science against itself. For many people, the edifice cannot be violently turn asunder, but must be carefully picked apart piece by piece.

For those "ahead of the game" or "onto the lies", this thread may seem superfluous or unnecessary. Yet, I think we can also easily demonstrate that for the average person this thread's central topic is an important stepping stone to free critical thinking.

For other approaches to the lies, however, we do suggest starting/contributing to other threads. Thank you for your thoughtful message!

[simonshack]

*

I have changed this thread's original title :

"Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum of Space?"

to :

"Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?"

I hope this is ok with this thread's OP, Boethius. If not, I will happily revert this thread's title to the original one.

The reason why we, the forum moderators, occasionally take the liberty to change / refine a given thread's title are many : sometimes the thread titles may not convey the best possible indication of what the subject is about - and sometimes they may contain words / concepts which may be misinterpreted, questionable, controversial - or simply unclear.

In this particular case, the word 'vacuum' was questioned by one of our forum members (and I've seen it questioned on other forums as well). The thing is: can we be certain that 'outer space' is a perfect vacuum? Well, we simply cannot know if it is - and indeed, not even the most acclaimed scientists of our times have ever reached an agreement on this issue: the debate about the very existence of an 'aether' (or ether) has been raging for centuries. However, if we are to believe the most popularly acclaimed scientist of all, Albert Einstein, the aether does NOT exist. Einstein fans must therefore have no objection as to 'outer space' being considered as a vacuum.

AETHER :
"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(c ... l_element)

On the other hand, what I think that we DO know (with reasonable certainty) is that Earth's atmosphere gets thinner and thinner with altitude. The core impetus of this thread is therefore to question, debate and verify - in rational and scientific fashion - whether a man-made rocket can possibly continue to escape from Earth's gravity (once it reaches the outer edge of our atmosphere, where aerodynamic thrust subsides) - solely by virtue of the 'recoil effect' produced by the fuel mass being ejected from its nozzle (as claimed by NASA).

[Altair]

Out of my interest and recent skepticism about space travel, I've recently followed "live" in YT two launches: the OA-8 resupply vehicle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM5POTQoSXY) and today the JPSS-1 NOAA observation satellite (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUrNNnkR5Y).

Bad luck, as both launches were scrubbed and rescheduled for later.

As for the OA-8, it was really exciting: when in coundown, the launch was aborted due to an aircraft entering the safety perimeter. But I checked Flightradar 24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/38.29,-75.65/9) around Wallops launch site, and there was not one, but *many* aircraft, both commercial and private, flying in the proximity of the launch sites. I'm also a kind of aviation fan, and in those events, a NOTAM is issued to prevent pilots of flying into restricted airspace, as should be the case. None of the neighboring airports had issued one, which should be quite logical when launching a rocket.

In all, the transmission was quite funny. Aviation radio communications are much more professional than the ones I heard during the launch, plagued with 'roger' and 'copy that', expressions that are *forbidden* in av radio for being too imprecise. Instead, it's mandatory a readback of the received message to make sure it has been correctly received and understood.

The launch was rescheduled for next day, and that time it was correct, but kind of funny that when the rocket disappeared from sight it was replaced with an 80's style computer animation. Also the comments on YT about the transmission quality were fun: "Cannot they afford a $200 HD camera after spending millions on this f....g rocket?" Indeed, most of the official live streamings are done in 480 line resolution. Well, NASA is supposedly at the leading edge of everything, so that is difficult to understand.

[dblitz]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

Interesting video using a vacuum chamber, a can of soda and a high speed camera to illustrate how a 'space rocket' is supposed to function.

The chamber is a near vacuum when the can explodes, so almost no air to push against, and the camera records the can moving in the opposite direction to the expelled gas and liquid before touching the wall of the chamber, so its not pushing against that.