Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[kickstones]

To me, without their proofs (and I believe the onus is on them to explain why they fake videos of their so-called achievements in the first place) people just accepting this concept, and accepting the videos as authentic without examination.

Hoi, the below video (1983: STS-8 Challenger (NASA) uploaded by the International Astronautical Federation) has had recent examination and a few folk have not accepted its authenticity, namely the scene at 3:28 and head right of the shuttle. One explanation, put forward in the comments section, is that it is a recording off a TV set and the face is a refection from that, another explanation is there are giants in space, maybe NASA could clarify?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJw5lE9089o


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJw5lE9089o

[simonshack]

*
Thanks for the find, Kickstones - what a 'classic'. I guess that's what you would call "in-your-face" fakery.

However, there's something even MORE "in-your-facey" about these silly NASA productions: the commentary of the same.

At the 14:35 mark (of above-embedded video), the speaker/actornaut throws THIS lame line at our faces (commenting on the ubercrappy "Shuttle-night-landing-filmed-with-infrared-camera") :

"We defy Hollywood to match this sequence".

Who writes this stuff? Well, "Hollywood" I presume.

[brianv]

*
Thanks for the find, Kickstones - what a 'classic'. I guess that's what you would call "in-your-face" fakery.

However, there's something even MORE "in-your-facey" about these silly NASA productions: the commentary of the same.

At the 14:35 mark (of above-embedded video), the speaker/actornaut throws THIS lame line at our faces (commenting on the ubercrappy "Shuttle-night-landing-filmed-with-infrared-camera") :

"We defy Hollywood to match this sequence".

Who writes this stuff? Well, "Hollywood" I presume.

Oh that was hilarious. Don't they even bother to watch their own productions? No neither would I!

Giants in Space

looking through the viewfinder of a Camera indeed!

[molodyets]

Thanks for the vid. That was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen, especially the landing. From orbital speed to landing speed, and all they needed was just a little bit of heat dissipation. It's no wonder that they stopped the shuttle program. I think they were pushing their luck keeping it going for as long as they did.

When the satellite exited the bay, spinning, there was no sign of a counter spin of the shuttle, to maintain angular momentum of the system. They're always talking about little details, like the name of the equipment they're using and where it originated, but never about all the little things they have to do to maintain their orientation.
On a similar point, I've never heard them mention how they have to match the vehicle rotation to match their orbital period so they are always facing the Earth in the same orientation. For example, one side of the ISS is always facing the Earth which means the whole thing has to rotate every 90minutes.

[dblitz]

When something explodes, anything nearby is pushed away by the force of a blast wave. This is what I thought propelled rockets, the restriction of the blast wave into a narrow channel, pushing not against air, but against the rocket. I never thought a terrestrial rocket was pushing against air, it seemed like the blast of the continuously exploding fuel pushed the rocket upward because anything near an explosion is going to move away from it at speed. I'm not sure why there is a need for something to push against like air, The explosion pushes the rocket along.

I don't believe anything either way, but I lean towards no rocketry because of NASA fakery of Earth images. If they could do it, why wouldn't they? I'm just not sure the free expansion idea really debunks it.

[pov603]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJw5lE9089o


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJw5lE9089o

Prior to the 3:28 mark (0:50, 1:36, 1:44 etc) they show the Astro-nots with helmets on going into space with their shirtsleeves rolled up and bare arms exposed!

That is standard practice for entering a vacuum and risking full rapid decompression?

[Peter]

When something explodes, anything nearby is pushed away by the force of a blast wave. This is what I thought propelled rockets, the restriction of the blast wave into a narrow channel, pushing not against air, but against the rocket. I never thought a terrestrial rocket was pushing against air, it seemed like the blast of the continuously exploding fuel pushed the rocket upward because anything near an explosion is going to move away from it at speed. I'm not sure why there is a need for something to push against like air, The explosion pushes the rocket along.

I don't believe anything either way, but I lean towards no rocketry because of NASA fakery of Earth images. If they could do it, why wouldn't they? I'm just not sure the free expansion idea really debunks it.

I agree. I think this is all being over-complicated and all this “pushing against air”, “no air to push against in space” is missing the point. To re-phrase what you said a little: The combustion expands rapidly pushing against the top of the combustion chamber pushing the rocket along. There is no cancelling force from the expansion in the opposite direction because that end of the combustion chamber is open, ie the flames you see coming out the back of the rocket are all sound and fury signifying nothing. The combustion also expands to all sides of the combustion chamber - these forces cancel each other out, but if the chamber is cone shaped, as most are, then the molecules hitting the sides also create a component of forward thrust.

So in theory a rocket can work in space. Presumably the the fuel and oxidant would need to enter the combustion chamber with force and be ignited instantly before the “vacuum” disperses them.

A bigger problem before the rocket gets anywhere near space is the amount of rocket fuel needed. NASA’s large fireworks (Saturn V, Space Shuttle) can only carry enough fuel to go a couple of miles before they fall back into the Atlantic. You can see rockets level off and then head down in extended launch films. Officially they are entering orbit and following the curvature of the earth but in reality are only a couple of miles away. (The flat earthers have posted this kind of analysis, they are actually educating me lol, but not about the shape of the earth).

The 3 stage rocket idea (illogically complex and heavy at launch with redundant rocket motors) was invented so if a plane or ship got into the cordoned area a few miles out of Cape Canaveral and saw something fall into the ocean they would merely think that was the first stage rather than the whole thing. Or in the case of the Shuttle – one of the detachable solid rocket boosters.

[Flabbergasted]

You can see rockets level off and then head down in extended launch films. Officially they are entering orbit and following the curvature of the earth but in reality are only a couple of miles away. (The flat earthers have posted this kind of analysis, they are actually educating me lol, but not about the shape of the earth).

The 3 stage rocket idea (illogically complex and heavy at launch with redundant rocket motors) was invented so if a plane or ship got into the cordoned area a few miles out of Cape Canaveral and saw something fall into the ocean they would merely think that was the first stage rather than the whole thing. Or in the case of the Shuttle – one of the detachable solid rocket boosters.

So, basically you are saying that:
i) NASA launches real rockets and real shuttles.
ii) NASA´s launch videos are legit.
iii) NASA´s rockets and shuttles never reach space.
iv) NASA´s rockets would work in space if only they could get there.

[Peter]

You can see rockets level off and then head down in extended launch films. Officially they are entering orbit and following the curvature of the earth but in reality are only a couple of miles away. (The flat earthers have posted this kind of analysis, they are actually educating me lol, but not about the shape of the earth).

The 3 stage rocket idea (illogically complex and heavy at launch with redundant rocket motors) was invented so if a plane or ship got into the cordoned area a few miles out of Cape Canaveral and saw something fall into the ocean they would merely think that was the first stage rather than the whole thing. Or in the case of the Shuttle – one of the detachable solid rocket boosters.

So, basically you are saying that:
i) NASA launches real rockets and real shuttles.
ii) NASA´s launch videos are legit.
iii) NASA´s rockets and shuttles never reach space.
iv) NASA´s rockets would work in space if only they could get there.

i) No. The close ups are Hollywood. The long shots seem to be the launch of some kind of large firework based on the (possibly wrong) assumption that Floridians would expect to see something in the distance . The idea of a complex rocket is just that, an idea.
ii) No.
iii) Nowhere near.
iv) Sure, if only they could find a way to refuel, navigate, orientate, slow down, change direction, protect from intense heat, protect from probably intense radiation, come back and land safely.

[patrix]

Request: Experiments/demonstrations that refute the hypothesis that rockets work in vacuum

If you been following this thread or the satellite thread, you know I’ve had a hard time even considering that rockets would not work in vacuum. But thanks to all of you and me working with my cognitive dissonance I’ve finally managed to think rationally about this, and I now instead find it absurd to think that rockets would work in vacuum. I am not that fluent with physics formulas but I have a pretty good understanding about how gas and pressure works. I am also a person that likes to talk about what’s on my mind so I’ve had a lot of discussions with friends and colleagues on this. I would like to know if anyone have links to experiments or demonstrations that show how unlikely it is that rockets could work in vacuum? I have some ideas of my own (see below), but I’ve not found anything similar on Youtube or elsewhere and would rather not go through the hassle of doing them myself in the garage since it’s a lot of work to build a decent vacuum chamber.

Cracker in a bottle experiment: Suspend a bottle with wires in a camber with normal atmospheric pressure. Put a firecracker in the bottle an light it. The bottle should move slightly when the gas from the explosion rushes through the neck of the bottle and meets resistance. Now remove as much air as possible from the chamber, and do the experiment again. The bottle should move less or not at all, since the expanding gasses meet lesser resistance from the surrounding air when exiting the bottle.

I know about the deceptive experiments done by for example Mythbusters and the one I refereed to previously in this thread, where you have a small vacuum chamber and hence get the exhaust gasses of a rocket to work against the wall of the chamber, but I believe if you do the experiment I describe you would not get that problem since a cracker releases less gas. And most people I’ve talked to agrees that a rocket and bottle with a cracker is a similar concept.

[Intothevoid]

Request: Experiments/demonstrations that refute the hypothesis that rockets work in vacuum

If you been following this thread or the satellite thread, you know I’ve had a hard time even considering that rockets would not work in vacuum. But thanks to all of you and me working with my cognitive dissonance I’ve finally managed to think rationally about this, and I now instead find it absurd to think that rockets would work in vacuum. I am not that fluent with physics formulas but I have a pretty good understanding about how gas and pressure works. I am also a person that likes to talk about what’s on my mind so I’ve had a lot of discussions with friends and colleagues on this. I would like to know if anyone have links to experiments or demonstrations that show how unlikely it is that rockets could work in vacuum? I have some ideas of my own (see below), but I’ve not found anything similar on Youtube or elsewhere and would rather not go through the hassle of doing them myself in the garage since it’s a lot of work to build a decent vacuum chamber.

Cracker in a bottle experiment: Suspend a bottle with wires in a camber with normal atmospheric pressure. Put a firecracker in the bottle an light it. The bottle should move slightly when the gas from the explosion rushes through the neck of the bottle and meets resistance. Now remove as much air as possible from the chamber, and do the experiment again. The bottle should move less or not at all, since the expanding gasses meet lesser resistance from the surrounding air when exiting the bottle.

I know about the deceptive experiments done by for example Mythbusters and the one I refereed to previously in this thread, where you have a small vacuum chamber and hence get the exhaust gasses of a rocket to work against the wall of the chamber, but I believe if you do the experiment I describe you would not get that problem since a cracker releases less gas. And most people I’ve talked to agrees that a rocket and bottle with a cracker is a similar concept.

Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.

[rusty]

There is another video that demonstrates the idea of how thrust works also using a standard balloon car. Although this clip does not disprove that rockets can operate in a vacuum, it does demonstrate the pushing against air idea, in that air exiting the balloon must push on the atmosphere behind it in order for the balloon car to move forward. I included this link because it was a second demonstration of that same idea from the first video and it’s entertaining. The experiment at the link below will start at 9:20. The explanations are at the beginning of the video.

NERD ACCIDENTALLY PROVES ROCKETS DON'T WORK IN SPACE!

To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.

[patrix]

To me that's still the simplest and most significant experiment in this area, using just a toy balloon and a vaccuum cleaner for demonstration that you don't get any propulsion if the gas is sucked away right after emission respectively if there is a near vaccuum at the nozzle.

Hi rusty and thanks for the input

Yes, I agree and this clearly illustrates why rockets have no way to work in vacuum. But technical people I talk to cannot see this because we’ve been so indoctrinated. Most of the times when I talk about this Newton is brought up and this reasoning is claimed to violate his laws, but it doesn’t. A good analogy in my mind, is to talk about a gun or a cannon and different bullets. If you fire a bullet you will get a recoil. If you reduce the weight of the bullet and use the same charge the recoil will be less. If you remove the bullet entirely and shoot a blank, the recoil will be very small but measurable. And if you fire the blank charge at the top of Mount Everest it will be smaller than at sea level. So what would logically happen if you fire a blank in vacuum?

[patrix]

Would the fuse light in a vacuum? I remember playing with firecrackers when I was young, some but not all bottle rocket fuses would burn under water so they must have an oxidizer. An electric model rocket ignitor could be used. Perhaps a safer and easier test could be performed simply by releasing an untied pressurized balloon in the vacuum chamber.

When I was a kid we fired mini rockets under the ice of lakes. You had to time it right, hold the rocket in your hand and release it just as it started to burn. But I don't know how well a regular rocket burns in a vacuum. Yes a balloon or bottle with just air would demonstrate the exact same thing, but I don't know if people will accept that. Rockets in vacuum clearly violates basic physics and that has already been proven. Yet we cannot see that (including me until just a couple of weeks ago) because of sattelites and all the rest of the space hoax. We are so caught in this lie.

[hoi.polloi]

Another funny thing about those rockets I used to play with as a teenager (I think they were called "Estes") is that they would accelerate instantly, like an explosion. I know this has already been covered in previous discussions, but I find this important to mention and/or "bump" it because I think it's a pretty critical discussion when we are watching these towering, slow-moving objects barely climb into the air on the launch videos.

What manner of rocket is this compared with the familiar kind we know about and can play with ourselves? The idea of some kind of balloon or buoyancy trick doesn't seem as impossible to me as I thought before. We must consider the real possibility that these objects are never manned. As per military guidance safety reasons.

The "dare" is that they tell the world they are putting up manned rockets as if it were as simple as flying an extremely fast and barely balancing aircraft (which itself, I am led to believe, is not easy either) but the truth is that there is simply nobody occupying these dummy crafts.

The logical fact that every kind of "landing" you can think of basically requires a "retrieval" crew lends itself to the idea that the "returning astronauts" are delivered to the "landing site" from a home base, which would be extremely militarily secure as well.

An obvious choice would be to simply place the "returned astronauts" there with a secretive crew. Then, for the "recovery" crew to retrieve in a kind of bizarre (Masonic? i.e.; dupers' delightful?) performance ritual. This would keep the secret in the hands of even fewer people, in case some NASA devotee civilian photographer or another kind of joyful zealot wanted to tag along and witness the retrieval first hand.

Depending on the security level of the whole operation you might leave the base with the astronauts already in tow, then "reveal" them in the ocean, or not even leave home at all and just have some short documentary footage.

I get the feeling that if they make footage they are happy with they show it. We get the false impression that some clip in the news means they have entire enormous documentary crews for every single take off and landing event. The truth might be that the only media that ever exists about a landing is the brief hour-long interactions or so shown on NASA channel.

And that's if you're "lucky" and you get that much footage at all.

Slap a "LIVE" sticker somewhere on there and — hey, presto! — you got yourself a real spectacle. Entire mission "filled in" the audience's very primed and hypnotized imaginations.