Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

[idschmyd]

1. Newton did not consider gasses, nor their effects, when developing his laws. NASA believers need to address the fact that gas does not exist in absence of pressure. As such Newton's Laws can't be applied to gas in the vacuum.

I'm no scientist but it makes sense that gas does not exist without pressure. But inside a combustion chamber there is gas. I’d like to know more about the process by which it shifts from existing to not existing. Can gas on a pressure tide spin a windmill? Blow leaves? Would space leaves in the rocket tail-pipe, vacuum-side of the equation, be knocked into motion by the escaping mass?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aero ... zles.shtml
…this figure illustrates how a rocket nozzle works… The nozzle itself gradually increases in cross-sectional area allowing the gases to expand. As the gases do so, they push against the walls of the nozzle creating thrust.


Do I get it? Could FE permit this, even if other logic forbade it? If wouldn't work for the balloon, either, unless that floppy thing really acts like a precison bell end.

How does gas even move under these circumstances? If the porthole breaks at 40,000ft, nobody is swept towards the equal and opposite side of the plane - everything heads for the hole. So what is propelling this thing?

[simonshack]

*

THE POWER OF AIR

I sense that many people are not aware of aerodynamics - and the forces involved when it comes to moving an object through the air - i.e. our atmosphere. NASA certainly isn't, since they keep repeating that their rocket exhausts do NOT interact with air/atmospheric pressure whatsoever. So let me illustrate in the most simple way the little I know about aerodynamics (having worked in Formula1 racing where millions are spent in dreafully expensive wind tunnels to combat and harness the pesky, tremendous forces of air - by highly paid engineers who spend their lives at it).

A fundamental rule of aerodynamics is that air drag rises exponentially with speed/velocity. If we look at the equation for drag, we see that, as velocity doubles, drag will square:



Wow! It sure looks like AIR will produce a massive REACTION (drag) to the ACTION (motion) produced by a moving object - such as a car trying to accelerate against it. Now, try to imagine - "inversely" - this car as the constant, ACTION force produced by a rocket exhaust thrusting a jetflow at 4.4km/s (16.000km/h) - the speed at which NASA says their hydrogen/oxygen exhausts exit their rockets. Feel free to compute your own calculations as to how much REACTION FORCE the air behind the rocket would fight back with. Can you see now how AIR REACTION propels rockets in our atmosphere?



It should be obvious that the aerodynamically exponential REACTION force of air - against the ACTION force of the rocket exhaust - is the primary and essential force which pushes rockets up in the sky. Yet, NASA claims that their rockets are propelled by 'recoil effect' ONLY - caused by the rapid ejection of fuel mass from the rocket's fuel tank. The reason why they keep peddling this silliness should be easy to fathom: since air pressure gradually drops to zero at higher altitudes, no rocket (no matter how powerful) could possibly continue to ascend: the forces of gravity will eventually surpass/dwarf the dwindling REACTION force of the thinning atmosphere versus the ACTION force of the rocket's exhausts.

ANY rocket reaching this physically infrangible boundary will just plummet back to Earth. Mankind simply cannot overcome this elementary law of nature any more than pigs can fly. Moreover, even if the rocket - by some miracle - reaches the vacuum of outer space, its pressurized gases will quickly be nullified/equalized by the overwhelmingly superior forces of the infinite, airless void of space.

The entire space industry is a massive and ongoing fraud.

[idschmyd]

Nicely put, Simon. Air surely has to must be part of Earthbound rocketry, whether they know it or not. Surely?

If I understand, rockets don’t generate recoil ever. One may contort the chamber to apply pressure, but this is merely to prise open the hatch. Once the seal is broken, the exchange is without further effort. When internal pressure drops below ‘sphincter release minimums’, engine cut off. Gas is not launched, it escapes. It is already pushing back and stops doing so when the door opens. There’s no recoil with rockets, I reckon. Though there is the air effect you explain so well.

[Boethius]

1. Newton did not consider gasses, nor their effects, when developing his laws. NASA believers need to address the fact that gas does not exist in absence of pressure. As such Newton's Laws can't be applied to gas in the vacuum.

I'm no scientist but it makes sense that gas does not exist without pressure. But inside a combustion chamber there is gas. I’d like to know more about the process by which it shifts from existing to not existing.

Hey idschmyd,

I say gas ceases to exist because just about every formula, property and function of gas requires you to know the pressure it is under. When that pressure is 0, all those laws, formulas and properties are invalid.

The mechanics of the process is that without pressure every molecule in the gas sprints off into infinity in it's own, unique direction without anything to stop it or slow it down. Gas molecules have a lot of energy, are always moving around, which is why gas expands, etc...

Shooting gas into the vacuum of space is like shooting ice cubes into the sun.

Can gas on a pressure tide spin a windmill? Blow leaves? Would space leaves in the rocket tail-pipe, vacuum-side of the equation, be knocked into motion by the escaping mass?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/aero ... zles.shtml
…this figure illustrates how a rocket nozzle works… The nozzle itself gradually increases in cross-sectional area allowing the gases to expand. As the gases do so, they push against the walls of the nozzle creating thrust.

You're talking about "Pressure Thrust", where the gas presses against the nozzle, or against other gasses caught in the nozzle. It's a relatively new theory about how rockets work in space. I find it curious that after nearly 100 years of claiming that a rocket only needs to push against itself a new theory springs to life. It's like someone coming up with a new theory about how cars work.

Do I get it? Could FE permit this, even if other logic forbade it? If wouldn't work for the balloon, either, unless that floppy thing really acts like a precison bell end.

The volume of the nozzle on an F1 engine like they used for Apollo is only about 5.5 cubic meters so even if you can produce this effect we're only looking at generating a few meters worth of thrust.

How does gas even move under these circumstances? If the porthole breaks at 40,000ft, nobody is swept towards the equal and opposite side of the plane - everything heads for the hole. So what is propelling this thing?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

[Boethius]

The entire space industry is a massive and ongoing fraud.

It's kind of like a lie that was told that was so big that nobody can untell it which is the way frauds like Bernie Madoff explain how they ended up in so deep.

The space industry is marketed as science yet it's impossible for anyone not involved in the industry to prove, repeat, observe or verify any of their results. It's not science, it's a mystery religion.

[iCONOCLAST]

I have been following this thread and wish to throw a few ideas about

1. How do we know space is a vacuum anyway? What is the evidence for this?

2. If gasses were sucked into a vacuum of outer space then how does the earth have an atmosphere when the moon has none?

3. How the hell do they test rockets operating in a vacuum to scale- it is like doing aerodynamics under water!

4. The whole MEME of "Rocket Scientist" to me smacks of ineffable, arcane priestly knowledge that is incomprehensible to lay people no matter how hard they struggle to understand.

[idschmyd]

Boethius

Thanks for reply and responses. The hamster ball for bees? Not sure. May have been a comment on this from howthingsfly online.



It says, ‘one things goes one way…’, which is about as far as the science of space travel has got here. The science of no-space travel is way ahead.

[Boethius]

Boethius

Thanks for reply and responses. The hamster ball for bees? Not sure. May have been a comment on this from howthingsfly online.



It says, ‘one things goes one way…’, which is about as far as the science of space travel has got here. The science of no-space travel is way ahead.

Newton's 3rd Law: action/reaction only works if you have two separate objects. More specifically these two objects have to be external to each other.

The reason you can't pull yourself off of the floor by your belt is that you are one object even though you are made of many parts: internal organs, muscles, arms, legs, clothes, etc...

You can pull a weight off the floor that weighs as much as you because it is external to you.

The combustion chamber of a rocket in space is internal to the ship. They are one object just like your arms are internal to your body and are one object when it comes to Newton's 3rd Law.

If you want to lift yourself by your arms you have to pull or push on something external to your body, like the floor or a rope, etc...

The rocket has to do the same thing if it wants to move. It has to push or to pull on something external to the ship. There is nothing in space to push against or to pull on.

You can exert as much energy as you want trying to lift yourself off the floor but if you don't connect to an external system you're not going to move. You may shake but you won't rise off the floor.

Same goes for a ship in space. You can combust all the gasses you want. If you don't generate an external force you're not going anywhere. People say "the ship is pressing on the gasses" but the gasses don't exist outside the ship. Gas doesn't exist in the vacuum. So the ship is left pressing against itself. A space ship is like a car with an engine but no wheels.

Every machine that moves is mechanical: relies on friction, pressure, exchanging energy with objects external to it. Everything except space rockets, that is. NASA might as well scrap rockets and go straight to saying we can teleport to the moon and other planets.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

[Heiwa]

Same goes for a ship in space. You can combust all the gasses you want. If you don't generate an external force you're not going anywhere. People say "the ship is pressing on the gasses" but the gasses don't exist outside the ship. Gas doesn't exist in the vacuum. So the ship is left pressing against itself. A space ship is like a car with an engine but no wheels.

Imagine a ship in space consisting of two parts A and B each with mass m. Thus the space ship A+B has mass 2 m. The space ship has a little internal mechanism, e.g. a spring, that can eject part A away from the space ship at velocity v leaving space ship B alone. When the mechanism is activated and applies a force on part A, space ship B gets velocity -v. Newton, you know.

I can evidently replace my mechanical spring by a liquid that burns producing a hot gas that ejects part A. That's why my space ship works in vacuum. Problem is that I have to get rid of part A every time I want to change velocity so my space ship gets smaller and smaller in the process.

[idschmyd]

Imagine a ship in space consisting of two parts A and B each with mass m. Thus the space ship A+B has mass 2 m. The space ship has a little internal mechanism, e.g. a spring, that can eject part A away from the space ship at velocity v leaving space ship B alone. When the mechanism is activated and applies a force on part A, space ship B gets velocity -v. Newton, you know.

I realise you’re directing to Boethius, but Heiwa:

Maybe you’re right about your hypothetical situation, but you don’t have a ship with two parts A and B. You have one part full of gas. It seems not to eject the gas. It doesn’t push it out. It just opens the hatch and away goes the gas. No contorting, firing, pushing straining or launching: gas exits without effort and it doesn’t push back. No propulsion without atmosphere. Newton!

[Heiwa]

No propulsion without atmosphere. Newton!

So you still do not understand that a propulsion force can be released in vacuum and/or anywhere, e.g. my simple spring? A spring can be mechanical but also in shape of piston with (compressed) gas in it. Release the spring and a force is applied to what is connected to the spring. If my spring is connected to a really solid point with infinite mass, it can move the whole universe connected to the other end of the spring! Imagine that! If the support is not solid, the support will move too. Newton.

If my space ship carries solar panels that in turn can load my spring during travel, it would appear my space ship can go anywhere in space. But I still have to get rid of mass from my space ship to change velocity, when the propulsive force is applied. Space travel is therefore impossible. But you can always apply a force to a space ship.

[idschmyd]

I knew you'd pick up on that - taken out of context it isn't true. Revised headline: No rocket propulsion by means of big fiery blast out the back end like we've all seen on telly in a vacuum. Springs?

[simonshack]

No propulsion without atmosphere. Newton!

So you still do not understand that a propulsion force can be released in vacuum and/or anywhere, e.g. my simple spring?

Sigh...The "spring theory" is yet another worn-out canard/parable relentlessly rehashed by NASA nerds to 'explain' how rockets work in the void of space, much like the "gun/bullet or firehose recoil theory" and the "medicine ball thrown from wheeled office chair" - we've heard them all before, thank you very much. I'd rather not see further vapid NASA moonshine being posted and diffused on this forum, Heiwa. Please.

I am posting this video halfheartedly - with a Parental Advisory warning: do not show this to your kids!

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0AMQ6kRNMA

I hope you did understand / approve my graphics (THE POWER OF AIR) and reasonings on the previous page of this thread - all respectful of Newton's laws, yet not fully addressed by the same. I dare trust you won't wish to disprove the well-known aerodynamic fact that (the REACTION of) air resistance increases exponentially with (the ACTION of) speed/motion. See, the NASA boys claim that air/atmosphere has NO role whatsoever in propelling their rockets. Is this your contention too? I understand that this thread discussing whether or not rockets may work in the vacuum of space seems to be an annoyance to you for some reason. You recently called for this thread "to be locked ASAP!" This will not happen anytime soon - and certainly not on the grounds of your adamant belief in rocket propulsion in vacuum - which appears to be shared by a scant minority here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that your puzzling, double-edged and rather nebulous stance aims at ultimately upholding the existence of man-made satellites in low earth orbit - while dismissing, on the other hand, the feasibility of long-distance space travel. If so, please make yourself clear now and spit it out: stop parroting age-old NASA twaddle on this thread and make your case for satellites - on our dedicated discussion forum:
"Satellites : general discussion and musings"> http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=540

[Boethius]

Same goes for a ship in space. You can combust all the gasses you want. If you don't generate an external force you're not going anywhere. People say "the ship is pressing on the gasses" but the gasses don't exist outside the ship. Gas doesn't exist in the vacuum. So the ship is left pressing against itself. A space ship is like a car with an engine but no wheels.

Imagine a ship in space consisting of two parts A and B each with mass m. Thus the space ship A+B has mass 2 m. The space ship has a little internal mechanism, e.g. a spring, that can eject part A away from the space ship at velocity v leaving space ship B alone. When the mechanism is activated and applies a force on part A, space ship B gets velocity -v.

Strawman coming: rockets do not use springs to eject solids. They propel gasses.

Newton, you know.

magic wordspeak = Newton

Let's evaluate your Calling on Newton

1. Newton didn't consider gasses, only solids. The gas/chemistry pioneers like Joule, Thompson, Boyle and others generated results which disagree with rocketry. That's why NASA types keep going back to Newton in the 1600's instead of going forward to Joule in the 1800's.

2. Newton's 3rd Law, equal and opposite forces, action/reaction, only applies if you have the necessary net external force. An object can't move itself. Not understanding or ignoring this principle leads to a misapplication of Newton.

3. Newton's 2nd Law, Force = Mass x Acceleration only applies if the ship is already accelerating (changing velocity) when its mass is reduced.

4. You don't specify which Newton you are going for, 2nd Law, 3rd Law, both?

5. NASA folk only seem to know Newton as far as NASA wants them to. For instance completely ignore the fact that gasses are not solids and that a different set of equations are used to evaluate the work done by and forces generated by gasses.

Continuing on with the Strawman
You've described a rocket that uses a solid propellant and now, of course, you'll switch it to using gasses without any consideration of the different physical properties of a gas or the fact that gasses are undefined in space. Nearly 200 years of gas/chemistry research in the vacuum nullified by NASA without any reason given except, trust us, we're scientists.

I can evidently replace my mechanical spring by a liquid that burns producing a hot gas that ejects part A. That's why my space ship works in vacuum.

Strawman complete The difference between gas and solid is ignored.

Let's just say...this may be your blind spot in the analysis...

You cannot eject gasses into space. Why not?
Because free expansion states that no work is done by a gas entering a vacuum.
Ejecting something requires work.
If the gasses do no work in space they cannot help move the ship once they enter space.
So the only force available to move the rocket are the accelerated gasses in ship itself which cannot move it because it is not a net external force (proper application of Newton's 3rd Law).

Problem is that I have to get rid of part A every time I want to change velocity so my space ship gets smaller and smaller in the process.

This is another misapplication of Newton
Force = Mass x Acceleration only works if you are already accelerating. If Acceleration = 0 then Force = 0 no matter how much Mass you release.

In space, when you release exhaust gas, that gas is just going to drift away. Yes, the gas will drift away very, very quickly, at many km/s but it's still just drifting off. It's not pushing the rocket because it imparts no force. Acceleration = 0, Force = 0.

[Heiwa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that your puzzling, double-edged and rather nebulous stance aims at ultimately upholding the existence of man-made satellites in low earth orbit - while dismissing, on the other hand, the feasibility of long-distance space travel.

Yes, I think the French Ariane 5 is feasable to put a 12 ton satellite in geostationary Earth orbit, GSEO, and vacuum using about total 700 tons of fuel costing €150M per shot. It is made in two steps - first you get into LEO using the main rocket and then the satellite is pushed up to GSEO using a smaller rocket - that works in vacuum. And hopefully Ariane 6 will put a 7 ton satellite there at much reduced cost 2020. But that's the end of space exploration in my view.
The reason why rockets work in vacuum is that the mass of solid or liquid fuel in a tank is transformed/burnt into the same mass of very hot gas taking much more space that can be ejected from the rocket at very high velocity into vacuum via a nozzle. The resulting thrust propels the rocket that, e.g. carries an Ariane 5 satellite, from LEO to GSEO. Newton.
The NASA/SPACEX/JPL suggestions of Moon and Mars travel are evidently 100% nonsense as you cannot carry the required mass of fuel to complete the voyage or even get away from Earth gravity. Same with the US space SHUTTLE. It was much too heavy from the start ... and only empty mock-ups were sent away to disappear somewhere and impress stupid observers. The SHUTTLE seen landing on Earth a week later was just dumped from an airplane a little earlier. The 100 tonnes SHUTTLES never reached LEO (or the ISS) because for that you needed five or more Ariane 5s to get there, which the US didn't have. So the ISS is 100% hoax.
I assume the same airplane was used to drop off the Apollo modules allegedly coming back from the Moon 1969-72 at 10 000 m altitude, so they could splash into the Pacific carried by a parachute. Hollywood style.
Only the Ariane 5 works. So no cute girls are required to wave off the Ariane 5s in videos of the blast offs.