Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
bongostaple
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by bongostaple »

Penelope » March 29th, 2018, 5:07 am wrote:
by patrix » March 28th, 2018, 1:02 pm
I have no problem with Newton's laws of motion. . . perfectly fine and valid. they never come into play in the rockets in vacuum scenario
Patrix, your belief that Newton's 3d doesn't come into play in vacuum is because you interpret Newton's 3d to mean that rockets travel by pushing against either air or ground. This is expressly denied by Newton's 3d because it deals only with relationships between pairs. Air or ground makes 3.

You may avow Newton's 3d or that third entities like air or ground determine the outcome of paired forces transacted by paired material objects-- namely the rocket and its exhaust one instant before it separates from the rocket. You can't have both; you have to choose. Please review my discussion last post concerning force vectors. Just as numbers are necessary for math, force vectors are necessary to analyze forces.

Further, regardless of the misinterpretation & misapplication of the Free Expansion experiment, I'm sure that you are aware that vacuum is not a force, and therefore cannot stop or slow speeding bits of exhaust. However this is actually irrelevant because the transactional force between the exhaust & rocket will have already taken place, an instant prior to separation. This means that the force (resulting in motion) will already have been apportioned between them, so that nothing which happens to one can now affect the other.
Your dismissal of air or ground making a total of three forces and not a pair, is fundamentally wrong. Anything fired out the exhaust of a rocket will be met with resistance from any kind of matter that's in that location, whether it's solid or fluid. The amount of resistance will be much higher in the case of solid concrete, for instance, than water, or air. But regardless of that, whatever the rocket emits is effectively pushing against what's just outside, and all matter takes some effort to move. Therefore your three things are just two things. The opposing force is highest for solids, and decreases for fluids.

This makes sense when you light a firework rocket, which accelerates from the ground very strongly, but then slows down. But for some reason, every 'space' launch I've ever seen on TV has the rocket lifting incredibly slowly from the launchpad, before apparently getting to tens of thousands of mph once out of sight. The only logical explanation I have for this slowness is that we are not watching a real thing.

Rocket thrust decreasing as the density of the outside medium decreases makes complete sense to me, and a natural extrapolation of the concept makes no surprise of tending toward zero thrust if the local material is a vacuum.

As regards the 'vacuum of space' though, I'm by no means wed to the idea that a vacuum is what 'space' consists of - as I'm certain man has never been there to find out.

By all means stick to theoretical arguments, but much of the history of space travel suggests that about 100km is pretty much the limit for any man-made technology to date. The US Air Force nudged up to that height with the experimental rocket planes , and encountered great difficulty staying there. If it was possible to go further, I very much doubt that the military, who were owning the effort then, would suddenly lose all interest and hand it over to a newly created civilian body, i.e. NASA. As a rule, when military are in posession of some technology that would allow military use, they get right on and use it, they don't give it away to a bunch of civilians.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

by patrix on March 28th, 2018, 9:39 pm
That no work occurs during free expansion is not a "belief". It is a proven physical fact.
You are sticking to your preference that we discuss the rocket in space first. And I am sticking to mine that we shall resolve the applicability of Newton's 3d to rocketry outside space first. In order not to annoy others with our endless repititions, I propose a compromise:

I promise on my honor to give a full and complete critique of Free Expansion of gases and its relationship to rocketry in vacuum after we have the resolution of the matter in atmosphere and on the ground. You know I didn't want to discuss Free Expansion at all until the earthly questions were resolved. Yet I have bent quite a bit on the topic and given you some indications. No more. Please discuss rocketry on lift-off and in atmosphere. Please, pretty please?
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

pov603,

Thankyou for entering the fray. Until now Patrix, with a little help from Simon, has been holding down the fort. You question the effect of a man within a tube upon the velocity of the tube if he repeatedly crashes into one wall of it. It isn't a trivializing question, but one which requires an understanding of Newton's 3d. Will you permit me to transfer the situation out of space and into atmosphere or on the ground? I am quite insistent that we should resolve Newton's 3d with rocketry flight here before we transfer the problem to space/vacuum.

Newton's 3d refers to the paired forces of paired objects and how they affect each other. They may be flung apart, as my chair and the thrown sandbag, or the forces may cancel each other as when rocket exhaust pushes on the pad or you push on a wall which resists your push.

As I'm sure you realize, in order for the paired objects to be pairs whose behavior is described by Newton's 3d in the "flung apart" example they must be separate in mass. One may not be within the other. The sand bag acts as a part of the me+chair mass and has no effect on the chair's velocity if I make all the motions of throwing it but still maintain contact with my hands.
pov 603 said, Would a "transactional" force between the "tube" & man have already taken place, an instant prior to the impact?
Would it be safe to assume that the "tube" would not only move forward but also go faster and faster, after each repeat of the above. . . .
Yes, I knew someone would get me on this. For me, it is a grammatical conundrum. You may interpret it as something else, and I would like your thoughts on the matter. I explain it this way: If I describe the moment at which the two separating bodies (chair & sandbag) apportion the forces incumbent on their separation as occurring just prior to separation then I am stuck with your little man making his tube accelerate.

But if I describe that moment as occurring just after separation-- well, obviously the two masses aren't in contact and can't influence each other. So if I compromise and say "at separation" the picture in my mind's eye is somehow always of 2 things no longer touching. So should I say during separation? Perhaps I should. But then, at what point during separation? Surely not that last instant when only the fingernail of my right index finger is in contact.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Although we have had this same seemingly endless discussion about ten times in this thread already (with Penelope representing my excuses for rocketry that never actually add up to a feasible way to move beyond the atmosphere since moving beyond Earth's atmosphere is the discussion), it seems it's still a "mental hurdle" for people to understand that rocketry encounters serious issues once the momentum ends and gravity takes over.

However NASA seems to be hedging their bets as usual, since the latest in exciting space technology news includes phasing out rocketry. Yes, the latest from NASA and private spacecases is the following:

Rockets, people and satellites will "now" (as if it hasn't been done the same way for the last half-century) be brought up by balloon. In fact, a private company is considering a sort of "space ride" (with tickets in the several thousands of dollars per ride) as a means of bringing people up nearly to the Karman line (though I wouldn't put it past the rich industry moguls to build all their instruments specifically to lie to the pilots and all the passengers that it's going higher than it actually goes, by a smidgen) via balloon — and then descending through the release of flotation and finally parachuting back to Earth.

In addition, satellite launches are now speculated to be cheaper, safer and more ecologically sound by bringing a rocket up as far as a balloon will take it, and then launching from there. You might even hear spokespersons for NASA, Space X and other enthusiasts contradict themselves once more and say "the balloon brings you so high that gravity is significantly reduced and therefore launching from higher conserves resources".

This is what I've heard from one of my favorite astronomer friends and I couldn't come up with the words to query him before we were on to the next subject. Now it may conserve rocket fuel to bring us up by non-incendiary buoyancy, but to say there is less gravity at the Karman line is weird when contrasted with the notion that Earth's full gravity is almost fully present hundreds of kilometers from the surface, or so it's said. I guess we ought to bring that to the "What is Gravity?" topic so ... moving on ...
Erdgvarp.png
Erdgvarp.png (2.24 KiB) Viewed 4962 times
The point is it seems NASA is already smelling the end of their rocket fables. All it will take to cement the change in the public's imagination is some fluffed up "disaster" or "pseudo-disaster" or "narrowly averted catastrophe" that never took place; and we'll all be primed for the change to new, exciting balloon technology.

:lol:

It's been balloons the whole time, with rockets for show and expensive (and maybe even somewhat wasteful) experiments, no doubt. And personally, I am coming to the appreciation that high speed lightweight military balloons and aircraft may be the best explanation for artificial so-called satellites. But in any case it seems "the age of rocketry" as we know it is presently little more than a marketing gimmick of the most expensive corporations to run: namely, imperial governments.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

by pov603 on March 29th, 2018, 1:07 pm
consider that when running at the wall of the tube it miraculously opened for a nano-second and allows the human to pass through. What happens to him and what happens to the “tube”?
How inventive you are. Back to me on the wheeled chair with a sandbag on my lap. Whether the chair (tube for you) moves backward away from the departing sandbag depends on at least three things. Obviously the velocity & mass of the departing item. If it's only a feather, regardless how fast (within reason) I make it depart by blowing on it, its departure won't move the chair. (too little mass)

Sufficient velocity of departure is also necessary if we are to move the chair: If I bend over and drop the sandbag 2 inches to the floor, the chair will not move backward.

But here is the factor you may not expect. If the action of departure by one of the paired entities is accomplished by a third entity, that action will not cause the remaining one of the pair to move. If a giant sucking vacuum (no pun) removes the sandbag from my lap at astronomical speed, my chair will not move backward.

If your man in the tube jumps to his death, and if his mass and velocity are sufficient, then your tube will move synchronously, in equal magnitude and 180 degrees in opposite direction. But before your little man contemplates suicide for the sake of our experiment I want to remind him that any velocity which he acquires from the passing wind (or any entity other than himself or the tube) will not contribute to the "reactive" movement of the tube.

Any energy internal to the man which adds to his velocity at? separation counts-- like getting a running headstart & leaping with all his might. Any energy from the tube which adds to his velocity also counts-- the use of pistons, compressed gases, etc.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

Patrix, I've read the thread and also your take on the gun & bullet at March 29th, 2018, 3:06 pm.

Analyzing the gun & bullet as paired entities yields: The energy of motion (force) given to the bullet by the gun causes an equal magnitude force upon the gun in the form of a recoil 180 degrees opposite. The recoil is less in distance than the bullet travels because of the greater mass of the gun.
I have read the explanation that you refer to but wouldn't care to try to untangle it. I would welcome any objection to my own explanation.
starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by starfish prime »

Penelope,

How do you explain the under-expansion of a rocket nozzle? Even if the rocket has several stages, as it approaches a vacuum, seeing as how the exhaust exit pressure cannot be zero, the nozzle will become increasingly under-expanded and lose efficiency.

Either way, unless we are going to undertake rocketry experiments and test the massflow equation, it seems like kind of a moot point. If the goal is to prove that spaceflight is impossible, I personally find Proper Gander/A.A. Morris' refutation of Newtonian orbital mechanics more compelling. As elucidated on his website, an object's motion in the horizontal direction is completely irrelevant to its vertical motion. An object dropped and one projected forward from the same height will land at the same moment. There is no orbital velocity that an object can reach allowing it to simply freefall around the Earth without constantly consuming fuel. It will always be accelerating towards the center of the Earth, unless it exerts a counter-force. The only attempt I have seen at debunking this argument is that gravity is opposed by centrifugal force. However, centrifugal force is merely a perceptual illusion affecting objects within an orbiting body. Since their momentum makes them want to continue in a straight line, they seem to be pulled to the outward edge of the vessel. But this phenomenon has no bearing on the vessel itself. Spaceflight is impossible because you cannot carry enough fuel to escape Earth's "gravitational" field, whether rockets work in a vacuum or not.
bongostaple
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:53 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by bongostaple »

Penelope » March 29th, 2018, 6:33 pm wrote:Patrix, I've read the thread and also your take on the gun & bullet at March 29th, 2018, 3:06 pm.

Analyzing the gun & bullet as paired entities yields: The energy of motion (force) given to the bullet by the gun causes an equal magnitude force upon the gun in the form of a recoil 180 degrees opposite. The recoil is less in distance than the bullet travels because of the greater mass of the gun.
I have read the explanation that you refer to but wouldn't care to try to untangle it. I would welcome any objection to my own explanation.
Your explanation is about solids, and holds in any theoretical environment. The question of rocket thrust in a vacuum is not about solids, it is about fluids. And with rocket fuel burning in the combustion chamber and passing out of the chamber and into the vacuum of space is precisely the type of scenario covered by the Joule-Thompson effect. The burning rocket fuel is not going to waste its energy pushing on the inside of the chamber when in fact it can escape into space without any resistance at all. The path of least resistance. And because of this, there will be no thrust generated.

Having said that, I'm still very dubious as to whether space is a vacuum as we are told. Unfortunately I probably won't find out any time soon either.
patrix
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by patrix »

Having said that, I'm still very dubious as to whether space is a vacuum as we are told. Unfortunately I probably won't find out any time soon either.
Off topic but my bet would be vacuum or aether if that term is preferred. If you remove water from a space here on Earth then it gets filled with air since we have an atmosphere. If you seal off the space and remove the air, then something non molecular but with the ability to propagate light waves remains and that something used to be called aether, but is nowadays more commonly referred to as vacuum.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

by bongostaple on March 29th, 2018, 3:25 pm.
Your dismissal of air or ground making a total of three forces and not a pair, is fundamentally wrong. Anything fired out the exhaust of a rocket will be met with resistance from any kind of matter that's in that location, whether it's solid or fluid. . . . whatever the rocket emits is effectively pushing against what's just outside, and all matter takes some effort to move. Therefore your three things are just two things.
Certainly air and ground possess the ability to resist other bodies. I dismiss air or ground only as participating in the paired objects of rocket & exhaust and the forces emanating from them. All forces of material bodies are paired. Material bodies are incapable of emitting an unpaired force.

The fact that forces are inevitably paired is important to rocketry as to everything else: The rocket's rise, a force vector, must be paired with the only other one available-- the exhaust's departure.

"Therefore your three things are just two things."
I'm not sure I understand you. If you mean something different, please say what. I think you are saying that the rocket's exhaust is pushing against either ground or air, and this is Newton's 3d, this is the pair of opposing forces which is lifting the rocket.

Back to my wheeled chair; this time I have 14 sandbags on my lap. I throw one, it hits the ground (downward vector) & the ground resists (upward vector). The 2 force vectors have cancelled each other (just as if you were pushing on a wall), but let's ignore that. In my understanding of what you mean there is no leftover vector representing the rocket's ascent, but ignore that.

I continue throwing sandbags and each departure from my hands causes my chair to move back by the same amount. Why aren't the earlier-thrown sandbags also causing my chair to move? Because only departures between paired objects and their forces will cause motion. Obvious in the chair-sandbag eg, of course.

You will think that it's different with exhaust because it looks continuous. Each layer of exhaust molecules/particles as it departs at great speed is paired with an opposite propulsive force on the rocket. It doesn't matter whether all the energy comes from the gas due to heating and compression, or whether it also comes from a push-piston or whatever in the rocket.

Do you still think that the continuous plume of exhaust is pushing off the ground at the far end and since it's in contact with the rocket at the near end it's pushing the rocket up? You have seen powerful exhaust come out & seen lift-off. I am asking you to ignore this perceptual conjunction, and instead apply Newton's 3d which is excrutiatingly nonintuitive.

Here, work with vectors. Represent each layer of departing exhaust with a downward pointing arrow. Say there are 10,000 layers before we have a continuous plume ground-to-rocket. So 10,000 imaginary arrows pointing towards the ground. I say that the earth is resisting the force of the exhaust and the two forces cancel to no motion, like you pushing on the wall.

You (or at least others) are saying that the exhaust force somehow rebounds from the ground, travels up the plume and pushes on the rocket. But if you are designating forces with vectors you can see that this is impossible: The plume is full of downward-pointing arrows. Each & every molecule/particle is moving downwards, and you cannot push your "rebound particles" upward to push on the rocket.

Pardon my not commenting on your evidence that rocketry is a hoax or impossible. I am making only one single point: That the following argument is invalid: Since rocketry relies on exhaust pushing on ground or air, it's impossible in the vacuum of space.

It's my intention to demonstrate only this single point, for reasons entirely friendly to the forum. I am not saying rocketry is possible or is being carried out. It can help no one's credibility to cling to an invalid argument.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

Bongostaple, thanks for your comments on Joules-Thompson, but I'm not addressing vacuum at this time, as carrying an invalid understanding of Newton's 3d into vacuum only makes explanations more difficult. With a correct understanding of Newton's 3d, Joules-Thompson becomes irrelevant anyway.
After I've gotten as far as I can with presenting the effects of Newton's 3d on rocketry on the earth I've promised Patrix a complete discussion of the Free Expansion experiment and the several errors regarding its applicability, and I'll address it to you as well. And present your comment.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Penelope wrote:You (or at least others) are saying that the exhaust force somehow rebounds from the ground, travels up the plume and pushes on the rocket. But if you are designating forces with vectors you can see that this is impossible: The plume is full of downward-pointing arrows. Each & every molecule/particle is moving downwards, and you cannot push your "rebound particles" upward to push on the rocket.

Pardon my not commenting on your evidence that rocketry is a hoax or impossible. I am making only one single point: That the following argument is invalid: Since rocketry relies on exhaust pushing on ground or air, it's impossible in the vacuum of space.

It's my intention to demonstrate only this single point, for reasons entirely friendly to the forum. I am not saying rocketry is possible or is being carried out. It can help no one's credibility to cling to an invalid argument.
I appreciate your concern, Penelope, but if you read my original argument for just such a case, you will find that the responses are quite sane and cogent; we are not discussing "building a pillar of mass" to push against. It is the fact that the useful atmosphere ends (and possibly somewhat abruptly) and that is where the pushing fails.

We are not talking about a torpedo that fires water out of itself after it surfaces into the air, but nonetheless you could apply a similar principle. Rocketry may "do something" but it won't be propelling or guiding the massive object whose main momentum was built up within the atmosphere.

Now, please — I really doubt members are largely trying to communicate what you are worrying that we are suggesting: "Since rocketry relies on exhaust pushing on ground or air, it's impossible in the vacuum of space"

Instead, an actual suggestion is twofold:

1. Rocketry relies on explosive fuel pushing on air to make the present contraptions we call rockets advance to the top of the atmosphere.

and

2. It's not possible above that atmosphere to use the same principle; instead the explosive fuel method encounters a series of problems invalidating the mode of transport, not the least of which is its inability to expand between the rocket and something else — because the "something else" is no longer there.

So, will you please stop bringing this tired "argument" to us and our thread? What you think you are clarifying has already been addressed many times in this thread. You cannot simultaneously ask us to think about a vacuum and yet ignore a place that acts like a vacuum. That's just shifting the goal posts each time someone tries to make a point to you.

Of course, fuel would hypothetically "do something" if it actually functioned in space but there are a number of problems I think we ought to ask you not to ignore:

1. Many nozzles said to bring rockets to space are not designed for (and cannot compensate) for a low enough atmosphere. The 3rd law will do a minimal amount of pushing on the nozzle in a variety of directions and start failing to "direct" the rocket in the desired direction. Maybe some claims about newly designed rockets are moot because they have advanced their fantasy scenarios to account for things they did not in the Apollo and shuttle legacies. Yet, in the end, even the new rocket designs remain of fantasy use.

2. Fuel might not react in the same manner at such extreme temperatures and altitudes, not to mention the mechanisms that inject and combine the fuel. To claim the fuel would do anything you would have to demonstrate that the functions would remain the same in a near-zero pressure environment and I doubt that's the case. But you at least would have to address this point. Again, please review the old entries in this thread which analyze the magical wordsmithing used to "explain" the functions of the jet propulsion in space. It often has to do with a similar problem to your original argument: imagining a simultaneous existence and non-existence of a mechanism (or formula) that inexplicably comes into or disappears from existence as "needed" by NASA apologist scenarios.

3. 3rd law will not likely be enough force anyway, even when you finally overcome and adapt your mechanism to more than one environment.

Spacecases are left with no choice but to ignore these important matters due to the lack of rocketry's viability beyond Earth's atmosphere, mock people and dodge when asked specific questions about the same. But deferring to an authority they have come to blindly trust, especially when that authority keeps these matters in the realm of ridicule, is not a threat to the forum.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

by starfish prime on March 29th, 2018, 11:15 am
An object dropped and one projected forward from the same height will land at the same moment. There is no orbital velocity that an object can reach allowing it to simply freefall around the Earth without constantly consuming fuel.
Yes, I can see that an object travelling forward wouldn't be slowed in its fall due to gravity, in our atmosphere. But if satellites exist, they supposedly stay up for years. Supposedly if you have a telescope or even a good pair of binoculars, and you watch the sky you can see a satellite pass every so many minutes. But I've never spoken to anyone who's actually done this.

No orbital velocity that an object can reach to orbit w/o consuming fuel constantly? Wouldn't mass be important too? That might be why satellites look so light-weight. Isn't it shameful-- we don't even know for sure if there are satellites.

Well the moon certainly orbits but such a distance! I suppose eventually we'll have magnetic force of some sort & won't have to carry fuel. I have to say that I regard the space program, even were it real, as a useless eater. Considering the number of people w/o modern sanitation & clean drinking water.

More later-- I have a sick chicken.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Penelope »

Starfish prime,
I am carrying no brief for the idea that rocketry is possible. I don't know. But if you throw a discrete scientific argument at me and it's within my mathematical capabilities, I simply can't resist. In fact even if it's not within my math I'm apt to take it as far as logic unaided by the empirical can take me-- which as a faulty process, has only limited claim to approach truth. Nevertheless:
by starfish prime on March 29th, 2018, 8:15 pm
How do you explain the under-expansion of a rocket nozzle? Even if the rocket has several stages, as it approaches a vacuum, seeing as how the exhaust exit pressure cannot be zero, the nozzle will become increasingly under-expanded and lose efficiency.
I don't follow you. Do you mean how could under-expansion be remedied? And wouldn't it tend to be over-expanded?

The rocket approaches vacuum and we want to preserve (until vacuum only, I guess?) a certain speed, by maintaining force (mass of exhaust exiting x its velocity). But the rocket nozzle is under decreasing pressure from without, so that a larger mass of exhaust would exit due to the resultant higher pressure differential caused by unchanged pressure within the rocket's "exit chamber."

The exit chamber might be just the stroke of a piston plunger emptying the combustion chamber, forcing its content of exhaust towards the nozzle. I've no idea what the innards of the rocket really are and I doubt that NASA is motivated to tell us anything which might qualify as a military quasi-secret.

I probably don't understand your question, but as I've framed it there would be any number of places to modify the amount of exhaust exiting, and therefore maintain propulsion. I can enumerate a few if I'm on the right track with your question. I suspect I'm not; sorry to be dense.
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by dblitz »

I have a little thought experiment about rockets and space:

lets say I am able to suspend an object, lets say a billiard ball, in a vaccuum. Next to this billiard ball I place a quantity of explosive material, suspending it one centimetre from the billiard ball.

Now lets say I detonate the explosive material. Is the billiard ball going to move? Regardless of what the resultant energy and matter happen to do on all the other sides of the explosion, the matter and energy on the side next to the billiard ball is going to reach that ball, affect it and move it.

Now lets say I am able to somehow manifest another quantity of explosive material next to the billiard ball on the same side, at the same distance and detonate it also. The ball will move a bit further. Lets say I am able to manifest these explosions continuously, one after another, each time a centimetre away from the ball, in rapid succession. The ball is going to move sideways at speed. I don't think anybody will doubt this.

A rocket is the same. Its just an object with a continuous explosion at one end, and it rides the blast wave of the energetic event occurring at its nozzle. An explosion and its blast wave will expand in all directions until it meets resistance from an object, which it will then push as far as it can. Without resistance at the nozzle end, the blast wave may dissipate quickly into space, but at the other end, the ongoing force of the contained explosion is going to push the object forward just like a series of explosions set next to it in succession would.
Post Reply