|
|
Post by LIT on Jan 20, 2014 13:11:26 GMT
Is rocket propulsion possible in vacuum? According to science the answer is yes. However, how can we be sure if it is really true? Scientists want us to believe that this is completely natural even in vacuum, as it agrees with Newton's third law of motion which states that when one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body. In other words for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Rocket propulsion supposedly works through a principle called 'conservation of momentum'. Can we verify that the above principle is universal? What kind of tests and experiments have been conducted on Earth to confirm that Newton's third law applies also in vacuum? Since science considers outer space to be pretty much infinite, it is not really possible to simulate the infinity in a vacuum chamber. Nevertheless, the experiments done are considered valid even though they fail to meet the most basic criteria since they provide totally different test conditions. You can't simulate the infinity of space in a lab. Boethius, a cluesforum user, provides a compelling argument that due to free expansion or the "Joule-Thomson" effect rocket's propellant doesn't generate any force in vacuum, consequently the rocket doesn't move. Link here Why rocketry doesn't work in the vacuumFree expansion states that when pressurized gas is introduced into vacuum the gas simply expands in it without any work being done, heat or energy lost. There is no conservation of momentum as no force is generated by the released gas. By the way, in the above-mentioned thread, they have provided quite a lot of, in my opinion, convincing arguments against the possibility of a rocket to propel itself through space. Unfortunately, the issue is still open for discussion and unresolved. |
|
|
|
Post by sceppy on Jan 20, 2014 20:38:39 GMT
Getting into the basics, we have to understand that a true vacuum cannot be created on earth, at sea level. The best we can do is evacuate pressure from the atmosphere creating a low V high pressure fight, if you like.
They say that a rocket works differently to other aircraft and it doesn't. It's the exact same principle of high versus low pressure and believe it or not, ships work on the same principle and even humans swimming. Basically anything that moves, works on the very same principles, it just looks different to us.
It's like seeing one kid eat an ice cream from a cone and seeing another licking the ice cream through a frozen lollipop, or eating it from a bowl. It's all the same thing just set out differently.
Of course, that appears too simplistic, so let's look at planes.
Basically, the jet engine takes in air at the front and spits in out of the back after combustion. There's a bit more to it, but you get the drift.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction and the key to the jet or rocket or whatever, is PUSH not sucking air in.
Everything is push no matter what happens on earth. Nothing sucks or pulls, it's just interpreted by us mere humans that things suck, apart from our jobs and such. lol
Before a plane takes off or before the blades can be used to aid in it's push along the runway... it has to heat up the air, which immediately makes the air in front of the turbine blades rush in to fill the super LOW pressure created by the fuel, which then reacts at high pressure and compresses and is ejected out of the back as super heat, which has created super, super low pressure at the back, which then forces the higher pressure air back towards the plane and setting it in motion.
Once that plane throttles up...it's simply adding to the pressure differences in a controlled, equal and opposite action/reaction, or super low versus super high.
This causes the air friction that the planes is moving through, to go over and under the wings and if you look at a plane, you will see that the wings are thicker and more rounded at the front and slightly slope downwards.
The air pressure/friction hits the wings much faster over the top, because it's deflected due to the wing slightly tilting downwards and below the wing is being hit more full on, because the friction is deflected against the wing , causing the higher air pressure under the wing to want to fill the low pressure created above it, so it lifts the plane.
The actual wing is creating the void.
They tell you that a plane isn't a rocket, but a rocket does exactly the same thing, except it's a vertical flight with just tail fins and plenty of THRUST.
When a rocket takes off, it uses maximum thrust, which means it has to springboard into the air. The advantage of a plane is that it can gradually gain altitude, but a rocket can't. It's a fight all the way up, so how does it work.
It's ALWAYS like for like, fight for fight, or equal and opposite action/reaction and this is key to anything.
Once a rocket is at full thrust, it creates unbelievably super low pressure in and around the burning fuel, under it. The second it does that, the in rushing denser atmospheric pressure ALWAYS tries to fill that gap but it can't because it's like you trying to squeeze wet sap in the bath....The more you try, the higher it goes and it's the same with a rocket, because the second the high pressure air closes in for the squeeze, the rocket has moved away, so the high pressure is always following or trying to squeeze the rocket upwards, under and a round that ejected fuel/oxygen mix.
The rocket stays steady, because as it's being pushed up, it's also created massive friction around it's nose cone which is deflected down the sides, all around the rocket and past the tail fins which steady it.
It's like you, driving in a car at speed and trying to put your hand out...If it's fast enough, you will notice that your hand is immediately thrown back into the car or at least to the door...because your car is doing the same thing. It's creating a high pressure friction against the lower pressure inside the car. It's always a balance.
The higher a rocket goes, the more fuel it would need to keep it's weight going at the same speed against the thinning atmosphere and because the pressure is lower, it means the fuel is ejected much quicker, or expands into it much quicker. Once there is no breathable air, the rocket is spent. It's a sinking metal pencil that can only go one way, which is back to the ground for scrap or stuck it some poor buggers back yard like a totem pole. lol
The actual real truth would be much more grim, because the PRESSURISED oxygen that is there , PRIMARILY to force out fuel at speed, would have exploded due to expansion, because it has to be in a sealed container.
The reality is, rockets are real for usage on earth as in missiles or fire works, but they do not exist as space machines.
The official story that rockets basically kick themselves up their own arses without the use of atmospheric pressure, is not only laughable, it actually makes me wonder how we swallowed the story for this long, when you look into it.
Anyone who hasn't thought about this stuff properly, I can well understand them thinking it is what it is. I mean, why wouldn't they?
I don;t believe in space...I know...I know, I'm crazy, so I won't go into that, YET. lol
The thing is though...let's assume that space exists and it is a sort of vacuum as they say and a rocket kicks itself up its own arse to move due to Isaac Newtons momentum space clap trap...how could it move?
Try it yourself and bear in mind you have atmosphere to help you.
Stand up straight and place both of your hands on your chest and push yourself over. What do you mean it's impossible?
If rockets can do it...so can you...and if you can't...then what does that say about rockets in space?
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Jan 20, 2014 21:22:44 GMT
Sceppy, thanks a lot for the post. Yes, the rockets in space seem to be pushing themselves forward just like Munchausen pulled himself up by his hair. It is laughable and I wonder how come this notion has not been seriously questioned.
If space is vacuum, and if a rocket somehow manages to get there, it would simply float a bit and eventually start falling. There is no way that it could stay in orbit and periodically adjust its trajectory.
|
|
|
|
Post by boethius on Mar 13, 2014 17:55:52 GMT
No, rockets do not work in the vacuum. The problem, as you have ascertained, is "free expansion".
If you burn fuel in a combustion chamber, yes, you increase its potential energy or momentum. However there is no way to release this energy, turn it into kinetic energy or force, in the vacuum of space due to free expansion.
The general mistake that many people on the Internet make when trying to rebut this particular "rockets don't work in a vacuum" argument is to assume the pressurized gas inside the ship exerts a force while it escapes. It does not.
If you ignore Free Expansion, sure, rockets work just fine. I have yet to see one person offer a solution where Free Expansion holds and rockets still move through the vacuum.
Of course the people commenting on line are not professionals in the field of chemistry, physics or aeronautics. No such person would risk their career by addressing this issue. It is taboo in the world of real scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Mar 14, 2014 14:36:23 GMT
No, rockets do not work in the vacuum. The problem, as you have ascertained, is "free expansion". If you burn fuel in a combustion chamber, yes, you increase its potential energy or momentum. However there is no way to release this energy, turn it into kinetic energy or force, in the vacuum of space due to free expansion. The general mistake that many people on the Internet make when trying to rebut this particular "rockets don't work in a vacuum" argument is to assume the pressurized gas inside the ship exerts a force while it escapes. It does not. If you ignore Free Expansion, sure, rockets work just fine. I have yet to see one person offer a solution where Free Expansion holds and rockets still move through the vacuum. Of course the people commenting on line are not professionals in the field of chemistry, physics or aeronautics. No such person would risk their career by addressing this issue. It is taboo in the world of real scientists. Boethius, I am glad to see you here. Thank you for your input. Indeed, if free expansion is real, and supposedly even science admits that  the issue we have with rocket propulsion in vacuum is insurmountable. It just doesn't work as you have aptly suggested. There are suggestions that simply by dropping anything off the board of a spacecraft directed propulsion/motion could occur, but I assume it won't be enough to sustain the spacecraft's continuous travel through space. This could theoretically provide only a temporary directed motion as long as there is something to be thrown off the board of the spacecraft. |
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 4, 2015 7:01:30 GMT
I also dont believe that rockets work in space ... There is nothing the rocket can go against ... no air ...
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 4, 2015 8:55:18 GMT
I also dont believe that rockets work in space ... There is nothing the rocket can go against ... no air ... Actually, I don't know if space exists at all. At least it might not in the popular way people think of it. It is not vacuum either. Outer spaceThe lack of air is generally called vacuum which is erroneous. There is always something, it is never empty. In fact, if space exists it is not vacuum by definition, as vacuum is the absence of anything, so it doesn't exist  |
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 4, 2015 9:14:20 GMT
I also dont know ... But the scientist say so ... In this theory i dont understand how can it work ...
I didnt believe it at all Also ... Space and everything ... I just see cgi Images ... We all ... I know ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boethius on Apr 14, 2015 15:22:14 GMT
Here's proof rockets can't work in a vacuum:
Imagine the rocket ship is a 6-sided plastic die. If there is 0 pressure exerted equally on all six faces when its in space which way will the rocket go? It will go where gravity tells it to go. So how can we use our rocket thrust to push the die towards the moon? We can't because no matter how much high pressure gas the die-rocket releases there will always be 0 pressure against all six faces. Thrust requires high pressure behind and low pressure in front of the object being moved.
We cannot use gas to create a local high-pressure zone in space because every gas molecule released into the vacuum speeds away and disappears into the void. The first molecule disappears and the second goes right behind it, never catching up to the first one because the first one never slows down and so on up to an almost infinite number all escaping the rocket without bumping into each other. No molecule ever bumps into another so the area under the rocket remains zero pressure.
In the atmosphere the first molecule out is slowed down by the air molecules underneath the rocket so the second one collides with the first, etc... In the atmosphere every molecule will either collide with the air or another molecule or both. In an atmosphere there will be billions of collisions per second per molecule whereas in space there will be zero.
With no collisions between gas molecules there is no pressure and with no pressure there is no thrust.
Let a scientist with a degree and an academic position debate me on this topic. I'm waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 14, 2015 16:31:34 GMT
Thank you! This is excellent. I am learning more every day. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 14, 2015 16:41:43 GMT
@boethius
That is indeed an excellent and very insightful comment!
We would be glad if you join us. I am sure you can contribute a lot to the debate. Please feel free to write your thoughts on the other topics as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 16:54:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 17:53:13 GMT
A rocket works in the same way as the recoil of a gun.
If you had a gun in space and fired a bullet, the gun goes backwards with the same momentum as the bullet goes forwards where momentum is Mass X velocity. Ie the heavier gun goes back much slower than the faster lighter bullet goes forwards.
A rocket in space is sort of firing lots of tiny bullets out the back and so it goes forwards
A rocket is not pushing its way forwards by building up a pressure at the back, instead it burns part of its mass (the fuel) and by burning it, the expanded gases are accelerated out the back exactly like zillions of tiny bullets.
And so you have the conservation of momentum law where the fuel force escaping the rocket is equal to the extra force now moving the rocket forwards as the fuel escapes backwards.
And you have the for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction law.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 18:04:08 GMT
A rocket is not pushing its way forwards by building up a pressure at the back, instead it burns part of its mass (the fuel) and by burning it, the expanded gases are accelerated out the back exactly like zillions of tiny bullets. you can´t create a chemical reaction in the vaccum of space |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 18:09:04 GMT
A rocket is not pushing its way forwards by building up a pressure at the back, instead it burns part of its mass (the fuel) and by burning it, the expanded gases are accelerated out the back exactly like zillions of tiny bullets. you can´t create a chemical reaction in the vaccum of space In any case the chemical reaction happens during the high pressure chemical reaction occuring inside the rocket. A gun will still fire in space. Its just a chemical reaction that occurs inside the cartridge housing the bullet. Free expansion argument: Effectively a rocket motor creates a particle beam streaming out into the vacuum of space. Those particles will not change direction to fill a vacuum instantaneously because they have inertia, where inertia is the resistance to a change in direction which is a property of matter. eg your car goes straight on at a curve in the road. Once the particles have left the nozzle in a rearwords direction their work is done. Those particles that immediately escape sideways subtract from the available force but do not destroy all of the rockets propulsion |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Apr 14, 2015 19:06:37 GMT
A gas-powered rocket is not a gun; they operate in completely different ways. Please stop spamming the forum with copy-pasta from Wikipedia whilst claiming to be a 'freethinker'. Newton's Third Law is a perfectly adequate explanation for how a rocket works, but only when applied correctly i.e. the action-reaction pair occurs when the rocket exhaust column meets an outside mass such as the atmosphere. No outside mass, no push. Rockets do not work in vacuum, or any sufficiently low-pressure environment for that matter. And that's without even mentioning Free Expansion, which kills the whole subject off completely. There are no rockets in 'space'. Oh, and your explanation for how heat is conducted in the thermosphere in the 'satellites' thread is more Wikipedia nonsense too; if solar radiation heats all particles in the thermosphere up to 2500F then it will also heat satellites up to that temperature, because SATELLITES ARE MADE OF PARTICLES. Or do you dispute that? Perhaps you should have a look in Wikipedia to find out if you do or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 14, 2015 19:14:38 GMT
I do not want to derail this thread, so if this is not appropriate please say so. I have also wondered about what they say about the sun. How can you have these massive "coronas" flying off the surface as they say, if space is a vacuum?  |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 19:31:03 GMT
A gas-powered rocket is not a gun; they operate in completely different ways. Please stop spamming the forum with copy-pasta from Wikipedia whilst claiming to be a 'freethinker'. Newton's Third Law is a perfectly adequate explanation for how a rocket works, but only when applied correctly i.e. the action-reaction pair occurs when the rocket exhaust column meets an outside mass such as the atmosphere. No outside mass, no push. Rockets do not work in vacuum, or any sufficiently low-pressure environment for that matter. And that's without even mentioning Free Expansion, which kills the whole subject off completely. There are no rockets in 'space'. Oh, and your explanation for how heat is conducted in the thermosphere in the 'satellites' thread is more Wikipedia nonsense too; if solar radiation heats all particles in the thermosphere up to 2500F then it will also heat satellites up to that temperature, because SATELLITES ARE MADE OF PARTICLES. Or do you dispute that? Perhaps you should have a look in Wikipedia to find out if you do or not... A rocket reacts to the fuel shooting out of the back at high speed by slowly moving forwards, and this process is continual so the rocket slowly gets faster and faster. Newtons third law just is. A rocket does not work by pushing against something. Instead it accelerates matter and ejects it rearwards, like a recoil or like throwing stuff over board As i have already pointed out providing a spacecraft has a reflective shield it will not be strongly absorbing the suns energy. It will still heat up though so it will have to have directions that point towards colder areas of space so it can avoid being slowly heated and destroyed. That kind of thing can be managed rather than it being a show stopper. Free expansion argument: Effectively a rocket motor creates a particle beam streaming out into the vacuum of space. Those particles will not change direction to fill a vacuum instantaneously because they have inertia, where inertia is the resistance to a change in direction which is a property of matter. eg your car goes straight on at a curve in the road. Once the particles have left the nozzle in a rearwords direction their work is done. Those particles that immediately escape sideways subtract from the available force but do not destroy all of the rockets propulsion |
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 20:07:28 GMT
A gas-powered rocket is not a gun; they operate in completely different ways. Please stop spamming the forum with copy-pasta from Wikipedia whilst claiming to be a 'freethinker'. Newton's Third Law is a perfectly adequate explanation for how a rocket works, but only when applied correctly i.e. the action-reaction pair occurs when the rocket exhaust column meets an outside mass such as the atmosphere. No outside mass, no push. Rockets do not work in vacuum, or any sufficiently low-pressure environment for that matter. And that's without even mentioning Free Expansion, which kills the whole subject off completely. There are no rockets in 'space'. Oh, and your explanation for how heat is conducted in the thermosphere in the 'satellites' thread is more Wikipedia nonsense too; if solar radiation heats all particles in the thermosphere up to 2500F then it will also heat satellites up to that temperature, because SATELLITES ARE MADE OF PARTICLES. Or do you dispute that? Perhaps you should have a look in Wikipedia to find out if you do or not... Newtons third law just is. In a atmosphere it is. its magic What? oh yea btw. a car moves in a atmosphere too |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 20:44:38 GMT
Newtons third law just is. In a atmosphere it is. its magic What? oh yea btw. a car moves in a atmosphere too It is just physics. If you could chuck stuff out the back of a car in space your action creates an equal an opposite reaction without there being an atmosphere No magic required If tonnes of particles are travelling out of a rocket nozzle in a organised beam of particles travelling away from the rocket then tonnes of reaction is created to propel the rocket thru the vacuum of space without the difficulties of having to push tonnes of particles of air out of the way. Its going to go pretty fast pretty quickly and keep going faster while it has the power to chuck out tonnes of particles that move backwards away from the rocket. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 20:56:51 GMT
We are appreciating all your objections and how you can state them without aggressiveness and with supporting evidence. I appreciated your objections on the lighthouses.
In case you know another good non-flat earther, patient and respectful and informed like you, feel free to invite him to join us.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 21:43:19 GMT
We are appreciating all your objections and how you can state them without aggressiveness and with supporting evidence. I appreciated your objections on the lighthouses. In case you know another good non-flat earther, patient and respectful and informed like you, feel free to invite him to join us. Thanks acenci |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 21:47:49 GMT
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 22:15:25 GMT
In a atmosphere it is. its magic What? oh yea btw. a car moves in a atmosphere too It is just physics. I don´t buy it. And btw. you couldn´t explain it. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 22:26:39 GMT
I don´t buy it. And btw. you couldn´t explain it. I gave the very simple explanation that when you fire a gun the gun moves backwards it is just physics and a basic law of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite action. I explained the rocket is firing particle bullets out of the back of the rocket by creating a particle beam. Thats an action. And according to simple physics there will be a reaction in the opposite direction that drives the rocket forwards like the recoil of a gun firing particles backwards. |
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 22:31:55 GMT
aliveandkickingthe gun has a 3rd condition carried with it which is the environment (which is exhausted after 1 shot), the laser beam story has not
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 22:37:44 GMT
aliveandkickingthe gun has a 3rd condition carried with it which is the environment (which is exhausted after 1 shot), the laser beam story has not I am sure you can imagine a machine gun with a vast container of bullets i am not sure what you are saying though. Are you saying a machine gun will not fire in a vacuum? |
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 14, 2015 23:03:17 GMT
aliveandkickingthe gun has a 3rd condition carried with it which is the environment (which is exhausted after 1 shot), the laser beam story has not I am sure you can imagine a machine gun with a vast container of bullets i am not sure what you are saying though. Are you saying a machine gun will not fire in a vacuum? When the bullet comes out of the gun there is an exchange of air from the inside with nothing from the outside. So no I don´t think it will work. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 23:17:29 GMT
I am sure you can imagine a machine gun with a vast container of bullets i am not sure what you are saying though. Are you saying a machine gun will not fire in a vacuum? When the bullet comes out of the gun there is an exchange of air from the inside with nothing from the outside. So no I don´t think it will work. The explosion is created inside the cartridge and once the bullet is moving outwards the combustion gases escape out of the cartridge A vacuum cannot interfere with this process because the explosion is not caused by the material burning in the atmosphere around the gun Some 'explosives' like petrol or hydrogen where hydrogen is certainly very highly explosive in air, only burn in air but others contain all of the chemical energy they need already and only require detonation. |
|
|
|
Post by oterraplanero on Apr 15, 2015 13:06:31 GMT
Maybe a rocket can move in space vacuum... but wait: So everytime a volcano explodes here the earth acelerates thru the vacum? And when a "solar explosion" occur the sun moves like a rocket? Everytime a asteroid hits the moon the moon moves a little bit? Hahah this heliocentric ballshit universe would be crushed already. Everyday I learn it's all a big fantasy we lived together, folks... WE DON'T NEED TO ARGUE THIS SUBJECT... BECAUSE FREE SPACE DOESN'T EXIST. IF THERE IS A VACUUM IT'S A ENCLOSED VACUUM INSIDE THE FIRMAMENT MEMBRANE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO A HUMAM MADE LAB VACUUM...
|
|
the issue we have with rocket propulsion in vacuum is insurmountable. It just doesn't work as you have aptly suggested. 
