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.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Mansur »

I think the main figure of the video is definitely the (space) rocket model, which the guy is waving in front of the camera for a considerable part of the clip.

The 'work' is done, I think it is obvious, by the liquid. If the guy was really interested in the behaviour of the gas, he would have had to use a pressurised bottle with only gas in it; but now he gives the impression, perhaps deliberately, that the soft drink is the liquid fuel... The 'experiment' is complete nonsense, with or without string.

With his HD camera, perhaps he should have been watching the atmospheric pressure sensor to document minutely the change in air pressure - of course, that would probably require an 'HD sensor' too, I don't know if such a thing exists. Anyway, if you want to know something, you have to do hundreds and thousands of experiments, not just one.

Videos of this type are run under the prestigious heading of 'experiment', but should be called a demonstration, not in the regular meaning (demonstrating a known fact with an 'experiment'), but in a purely propaganda sense. On the basis of 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.
kalliste wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:09 amAre the people doing these videos idiots rather than paid misdirection, that's all that the paranoid in me really needs to know.
Among other videos of the author gentleman, one shows a balloon and another a mini drone, also in a vacuum chamber. The behaviour of both objects as shown in the two videos respectively, under zero atmospheric pressure, is utter nonsense, so the two psychological categories above could perhaps be brought together under a common heading: a liar. For the 'idiot', unless it is a medical case, I can offer no excuse - he himself made an idiot of himself. (I would rather withdraw my previous indulgence of them.)

As for the 'infinite vacuum': many people raise the idea that if there were a vacuum, the atmosphere could not exist. So when the air runs out, something has to remain. The question is what that is. I guess there is no empirical answer to that. Not just 'not yet', but not at all.

To return: trying to produce experimental conditions, simulations, of which we know nothing about the original seems to be an interesting effort.
Discumbobulate
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:21 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Discumbobulate »

I'm young enough to remember the old Saturn V rocket and the Apollo moon shots. The operation of the rockets explained in those days by physicists of the day as I recall it.

1st stage rocket engine , 5 large area nozzles needed to lift the huge load of the launch pad . These quickly lose efficiency as the rocket clears the launch pad and takes a ballistic flight path to prevent a stall . Rocket accelerates and when the first stage fuel is spent the second stage fuel ignites ( still within the atmosphere) as the first stage falls away .

2nd stage rocket engine has smaller nozzle area giving increased efficiency in reduced atmospheric pressure. Also kicks against the momentum of the first stage giving more acceleration.

3rd stage as above.

These 3 stages were said to produce enough velocity to escape the clutches of earths gravity - along with the supposed slingshot effect produced by orbiting earth at high speed.

Very interesting to me as a youngster. The rocket equations of that showed that thrust depended totally on outer atmospheric pressure or launch pad / used stage.

Having been made redundant in the 1990s , and still having the belief that scientists were truthful souls , I thought I'd go to Uni , hopefully to study for a degree in rocket science.

No such course. That's when I lost my faith.

Rocketry is pure engineering. Nasa's rocket equations are laughable .Sealed bombs or cans of soda pop will explode in vacuums but rocket engines cannot
produce kinetic energy in a vacuum - it would be a violation of the known laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Of course maybe we dont have an outer space or even a vacuum. Nasa lies whichever way
glg
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by glg »

Mansur wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:32 am (..)The 'experiment' is complete nonsense, with or without string.(..)
I disagree: The experiment is complete nonsense precisely and foremost because of the string.
I mentioned the string because it is the primary receiver and translator of the slightest disturbance in inertia of the can.

For any experiment which wants to test secondary or tertiary effects devaluating the experiment like gas hitting the chamber wall or ¨ground effect¨ or such, must first discard the primary obstacle to those hypothesis and that is the string.
Of course, once the string is gone, this experiment ceases to exist. People like the string though because it fools them into believing that the can is floating in a vacuum which allows them to study things like gas hitting the chamber walls asf. but those things actually cannot be studied correctly because here the string is the primary receiver and translator of the slightest disturbance in inertia of the can.

I don't want to make an issue out of it other then that I think it matters to see where the primary faults in an experiment lie, because those are the first that need to go to see which other design faults might be next in line.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

Discumbobulate wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:47 am
Rocketry is pure engineering. Nasa's rocket equations are laughable .Sealed bombs or cans of soda pop will explode in vacuums but rocket engines cannot
produce kinetic energy in a vacuum - it would be a violation of the known laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Of course maybe we dont have an outer space or even a vacuum. Nasa lies whichever way
That's my theory in the ISS thread. The mystery of why they set the ISS in a low orbit that means it continually has to be resupplied with fuel to boost itself back into orbit is no mystery at all if that's as high as a rocket can get. I agree with what I interpret to be your thinking, rockets clearly work up to a point and they've milked it to the limit by engineering tinkering after decades of empirical measurement and good old trial and error. They could get Apollo into Earth orbit of sorts but they had to fake the rest, hence the faked picture of approaching the Moon that was clearly taken in Earth orbit that Bart Sibrel has exposed. The very first space suits were little more than slighty modified high altitude aircraft pilot pressurised flight suits and after that space suits become increasingly ridiculous and impractical as space flight had to be faked. I watched a video made in the sixties about the Apollo Moon suit backpack and it was hilarious. How the guy explaining how it worked kept a straight face was the most impressive part.
Like Elon Musk says, you know it's real because it's fake...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-40rmID-U6o
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

I've come up with a hypothesis on how rocket engines can work in the vacuum of space if they indeed they can be shown to work in the vacuum of space. They're pushing against their own exhaust gases just as NASA and the bullshit rocket equation pretends. The rocket equation is nonsense though and nothing to do with what is happening except in so far as you want the highest velocity exhaust gas you can get. The trick is that so long as the exhaust is moving fast enough and can generate shock waves in the exhaust flow while in a vacuum the rocket will work. The shock waves are the mechanism to convert the heat energy of the gas to kinetic energy that can do work on the rocket. The shock waves in the exhaust hold up the gas coming out of the rocket nozzle hence no more free expansion. The nozzle design would be a critical factor according to this hypothesis. The engine will work so long as the exhaust stream can be made to generate shock waves, I imagine near the rocket, in a vacuum. In fact it's still working as an internal combustion engine but what's happening to the rocket is that the centre of mass of the system is moving around and generating momentum (think of Newton's Cradle but there's nothing keeping the pendulums in the Cradle). I'm totally guessing but maybe you can even move in the same direction as the engine nozzle is pointing if you do it right.

What gave me this idea is watching a video about the SR71, which I've seen in a museum. The speed of the SR71 was limited by the formation of shock waves in the inlet of the jet engines which would choke the flow of air into the engine. It had a special input nozzle arrangement to control the airflow but above a certain speed it ran out of adjustment and the engines flamed out because shock waves formed and stopped the flow of air. This actually happened to an SR71 when pilots ignored protocol and wanted to see how fast they could go. They nearly died because they had trouble relighting the engines.

I'd be interested to hear whether forum members think this will fly. Another thought occurs to me: if you were outside the rocket but inside the gas cloud generated by the rocket exhaust you should be able to hear the shock waves, so according to my hypothesis as long as you're close enough you can hear a rocket flying in space. All those SF movies were correct after all!
Discumbobulate
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:21 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Discumbobulate »

By what mechanism could shock waves form in a vacuum? The vacuum would negate any pressure build up surely.

For what it's worth my opinion is that you could not produce ignition of rocket fuel in a vacuum let alone a prolonged fuel burn. Basic chemistry as I recall - to increase the rate of chemical reaction apply heat/pressure , to retard the rate of chemical reaction reduce heat/pressure.

Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. I've not read ISS thread yet - so much to catch up with. Will also pay a visit to your website. Sounds very interesting .
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

Discumbobulate wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:48 am By what mechanism could shock waves form in a vacuum? The vacuum would negate any pressure build up surely.

For what it's worth my opinion is that you could not produce ignition of rocket fuel in a vacuum let alone a prolonged fuel burn. Basic chemistry as I recall - to increase the rate of chemical reaction apply heat/pressure , to retard the rate of chemical reaction reduce heat/pressure.

Sorry to be such a stick in the mud. I've not read ISS thread yet - so much to catch up with. Will also pay a visit to your website. Sounds very interesting .
I agree with you this is not a complete theory. I'm not saying a rocket will work in a vacuum I'm saying if it does this could be a reason why. Like you I'm unsure if shock waves can form in a gas expanding in the vacuum of space but in high velocity turbulent flow rocket exhaust I imagine it's a possibility.

Ignition of a rocket engine in a vaccum isn't an insurmountable problem to my imagination: hypergolic fuels ignite spontaneously on mixing and can be pumped at high pressure at the injector plate in the engine to ensure mix at high pressure. Plasma igniters require no flame and again some kind of turbopump powered electrically or what have you could provide high pressure jets of fuel.

It's the rocket equation and how a rocket engine is purported to work as a physical system I have issues with. I believe a rocket engine is not a "reaction engine" instead it's a very inefficient internal combustion engine with the nozzle and in the case of shock wave formation the exhaust gases being the substitute for a piston.

As mentioned by others, we have only NASA's word for the conditions near earth. They've now said earth's atmosphere reaches the moon in a highly attenuated form so the goal posts are constantly changing. Just how hard really is the vacuum in inter-planetary space within the solar system. There's planets and all sorts of random stuff off-gassing.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by Mansur »

_________

@ glg

Maybe you are right; I focused rather on the video as such and its maker and on the possibility of its being a fraud (though seems that without the string, the thing lying on the ground or even levitating somehow, it would happen pretty much the same - but I don't want to make an issue of it either, the thread seems about to take an interesting turn).
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

kalliste wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:10 am As mentioned by others, we have only NASA's word for the conditions near earth. They've now said earth's atmosphere reaches the moon in a highly attenuated form so the goal posts are constantly changing. Just how hard really is the vacuum in inter-planetary space within the solar system. There's planets and all sorts of random stuff off-gassing.
My guess, at this point, is that liquid fuel rockets work in space but very poorly and mainstream science has no real understanding of what's going on. Much like they can only hand wave about what is the actual mechanism for aerodynamic lift on a wing. Much more fuel than their equations tell them is required after the rocket leaves the majority of the earth's atmosphere and not all rocket engine designs work in the absence of significant atmospheric pressure and they don't understand why. Hence the Apollo debacle and the need for fakery. Apollo had to work to steal all that money from the taxpayer and be able to keep stealing it. The ISS is as high as it can get and NASA/ESA spends the whole time working hard to keep it up there. None of this can be admitted for obvious reasons.
This video which commentators seem to think is from the late fifties is classy

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZiTKXTKa9Q
patrix
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by patrix »

kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:54 am My guess, at this point, is that liquid fuel rockets work in space
Well your guess/belief is not in accordance with proven physics then. Please start reading and studying the very first posts in this thread. It was demonstrated in the 19th century that rockets have no possibility to create thrust in space. Using liquid fuel does not make a iota of difference. NASAs "rocket equation" is pure pseudo physics.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

patrix wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:35 pm
kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:54 am My guess, at this point, is that liquid fuel rockets work in space
Well your guess/belief is not in accordance with proven physics then. Please start reading and studying the very first posts in this thread. It was demonstrated in the 19th century that rockets have no possibility to create thrust in space. Using liquid fuel does not make a iota of difference. NASAs "rocket equation" is pure pseudo physics.
I'm proposing a different mechanism for rocket action and the rocket equation is not of any central importance to how I envisage rocket engines to work in a vacuum. So read my stuff again. Solid fuel rockets aren't interesting because you have no control over stop/start. I'm saying rocket engines work by transferring the energy of the exhaust gases to the rocket via shock waves in the nozzle and/or exhaust stream. The exhaust gas is not expanding freely into the vacuum. It's in effect an internal combustion engine with the nozzle acting as a piston. It's also why I guess that if you get it right the rocket can move in the direction the nozzle and exhaust gases are pointing or a least you could design a nozzle where that was possible, counter-intuitive though that may seem and in contradiction to how NASA/ESA claims rockets work. In atmosphere the external atmospheric pressure would make this unlikely I think since in atmosphere I envisage the rocket mainly developing thrust by the exhaust pushing against the atmosphere. In high vacuum the efficiency (amount of thrust for amount of fuel consumed) of the rocket engine would plummet dramatically is my guess, so a great deal more fuel would be required to do work than expected from the rocket equation. My guess is because it's pushing not against the mass of external air but against the generated shock wave and it takes energy to generate the shock waves. In atmosphere shock waves would reduce the rocket engine thrust according to my thinking.

As I've noted, modern science still only has hand waving to explain aerodynamic lift on a wing so it's no stretch to imagine science hasn't got a proper explanation of how rocket engines work.

Notice aerospike engines and rotating detonation rocket engines appear to have been flavour of the month for a while then got dropped. Empirical testing has got them engines that can do something in a vacuum but they still haven't figured out how they've actually done it.

One a vaguely related note. This video of Werner Von Braun is pretty awesome about what they thought they were up to in the fifties
[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4RbeBxqso[/Youtube]
...and then there's this...
[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLZPOYj0roA[/Youtube]
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7246
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by simonshack »

kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:39 pm I'm saying rocket engines work by transferring the energy of the exhaust gases to the rocket via shock waves in the nozzle and/or exhaust stream. The exhaust gas is not expanding freely into the vacuum. It's in effect an internal combustion engine with the nozzle acting as a piston.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh dear...
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

simonshack wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:53 pm
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh dear...
I also think they had to fake the early A bombs but they got them to work to some extent eventually. The problem with nuclear power stations is not so much they don't work but they're too expensive to construct, are destroyed very quickly by the radiation and high temperatures, and are really only made to make more nuclear materials for bomb experiments and sundry nefarious purposes.

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKQHoAk6ONw[/Youtube]

Here's footage of a rocket powered upwards by shock waves, in this case from actual explosions but it's how I contend rocket engines in general work

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njM7xlQIjnQ[/Youtube]
patrix
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by patrix »

No offense but you can believe what you want to and be in plenty of company since most of the human population has bought into the NASA bullshit including me until a few years ago when I found this site.

But here we're interested in what can be scientifically/forensically confirmed and as for NASAs own explanation as to how their rocket creates thrust, it can be demonstrated to be pseudo physics which is done in the very first posts in this thread. Please study that. And if you find any observation or experiment that disprove the claims made there, congratulations! You will be famous since you've then found something that will change the laws of physics.

Atom bombs and atom physics fall in the same category as viruses and contagion - scientifically unconfirmed. And since several "nuclear events" including Hiroshima can be demonstrated to use false imagery there's no rational reason to think they are real until some actual evidence has been presented.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth's atmosphere?

Unread post by kalliste »

patrix wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:09 pm No offense but you can believe what you want to and be in plenty of company since most of the human population has bought into the NASA bullshit including me until a few years ago when I found this site.

Here we're interested in what can be scientifically/forensically confirmed and as for NASAs own explanation as to how their rocket creates thrust, it can be demonstrated to be pseudo physics which is done in the very first posts in this thread. Please study that. And if you find any observation or experiment that disprove the claims made there, congratulations! You will be famous since you've then found something that will change the laws of physics.

Atom bombs and atom physics fall in the same category as viruses and contagion - scientifically unconfirmed. And since several "nuclear events" including Hiroshima can be demonstrated to use false imagery there's no rational reason to think they are real until some actual evidence has been presented.
I've described a mechanism of how rockets can work in a vacuum, whatever NASA is telling us to believe. I'm not saying I know 100% rockets work in the vacuum of space but I'm saying it is possible they do actually work in the vacuum of space just not how NASA wants us to believe. I don't believe the BS NASA is pushing as propaganda of what they're doing. The Moon Landing photos were faked obviously because there's no way those Hasselblad cameras could have functioned on the moon unless conditions on the moon are drastically different from what NASA is telling us to believe. The pictures therefore must be fake or not taken in the manner NASA describes which again is lying for some purpose to deceive even if the pictures were taken on the moon and they did everything they described to us on the moon. There's footage of moon walks where they're so obviously on wires it baffles me that people can't see it. The moon EVA suits make no sense and are laughable if the conditions on the moon are as NASA described there is no way people could survive inside them on the moon's surface. This isn't even debatable, it baffles me how anyone buys this stuff. The stuff they're showing from the ISS is ludicrously fake. The problem is we can't know what they're really doing. We don't know if the ISS observers can see from the ground is a space station which they're doing nefarious things in or just a dummy to give us something to look at from the ground or some other illusion pulled off with covert technology.

We can demonstrate lies but the problem is discerning what is actually true. For all I know they recovered alien tech at Roswell and so they can fly to the moon all the time and then Eisenhower really did meet up with the Greys at Edwards Air Force Base and sign a treaty. NASA then has to run a giant disinformation campaign so we don't cotton on that "They Live" was actually a documentary.

Since you mentioned atom bombs I think they faked the early ones but my hunch is they eventually got them to work. My guess is a big problem with them is that radiation destroys the bombs so they won't function if they're stored for any length of time in an assembled form and using them as practical weapons is logistically extremely difficult. Likewise I think nuclear reactors sort of work but they're actually impractical for real world use because, again, radiation damages the components and structure so much they don't function for any significant length of time without massive amounts of work replacing components, re-welding metal, etc. They're basically too expensive to use for real when if you just light something with carbon in it on fire you can get all the energy you need. On the other hand, nuclear reactors are just the ticket for looting as much money as you want from the taxpayers. If you want to put nuclear reactors in your ludicrously expensive aircraft carriers they're just the ticket. No expense needs to be spared. Likewise weapons too terrible to use are ideal for taking the taxpayers money hand over fist without having to show anything for it other than some scary looking pictures. The Occam's Razor answer to all this is they're just hard at work stealing our money and they'll sell us any old BS we'll swallow to get it

Listening to Elon Musk talk for five minutes tells you everything you need to know that we're being lied to on a monumental scale. He's supposedly the richest man in the world. It's beyond insanity, it's the Twilight Zone.
Post Reply