It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

page: 26
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

You would use this equation to calculate drag

D = (1/2)(C)(ρ)(v2)(A).

Where c is a Constant, p is density, v is velocity and A is area.

The difference would involve density difference between the two. the velocity of the gas is much higher than the rocket moving forward. Plus pressure differential between the rocket and external will cause differing velocities.




posted on May, 31 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

You were talking about a rocket in atmosphere lol remember


I wouldn’t know. Because you say totally random BS and you didn’t quote what you were referring to.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

By the way. You never addressed the erroneous substitutions made for the thrust equation in the video linked to in the opening post.



Merged: Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Post by” JayUtah

“Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
The rocket doesn’t push the gas out. The gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made.”


No, it is not assumed -- it is observed and measured. The de Laval nozzle dates back to Victorian times, used in steam turbine engines. The pressure "gradient" is converted to velocity, which is expressed in your equation as Ve.

“Quote:
No one here can demonstrate that there is an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.”


I already pointed out that your derivation of the "pressure gradient force" was in error because you wrongly conflated two concepts in the derivation of the rocket equation. You did not address that. Before you claim that no one has refuted you, you must address the posts in which they do just that.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

sigh - at leas you are consistant

more blather - that was not askek for - and an utter evasion of the question

want to try again ?????

the basic question = which identival rocket will travel further with a 10 second burn ?

the one operating at 2 bar external pressure , or the one at 8o bar external pressure ?

given all other factors are identical [ as stated ]



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So assuming density is the same at 1, we have to calculate exit velocity. Lets assume 500 bars in rocket chamber.

Acceleration= change in pressure/density
=480

In second case a=420

Let’s say the distance of the nozzle pipe is 1 meter and initial velocity is 0

Distance =1/2 acceleration * time^2

Time 1st case =0.046
Time in second case=0.049

Velocity 1st case =22.1
Velocity 2nd case=20.6

Now force of drag, assuming all variables are same, the only difference is velocity. So the first case will go faster. Having said that, gas at higher pressure are compressed and usually have more density. But in this case we assumed it was the same for simplicity.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You simply stated the substitution was wrong without an adequate explanation as to why.

Second, “the gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made”

This is not an assumption, it is fact. Can you move gas from one room to another without the use of pressure gradient? Tell me how you do it



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

You simply stated the substitution was wrong without an adequate explanation as to why.

Second, “the gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made”

This is not an assumption, it is fact. Can you move gas from one room to another without the use of pressure gradient? Tell me how you do it


You are arguing apples and oranges again. The opening post video is making incorrect substitutions.

What you don’t get is the internal confined space of a rocket motor can build pressure because the reactions taking place creates an increase of pressure, and the designed restriction that is the nozzle allows the pressure to be maintained while the thrust of the rocket pressures out the rocket nozzle.

Again. Just because something is open to a vacuum doesn’t mean it cannot build pressure. Reaction rates and nozzle size determines the internal pressure of a rocket motor when designed to work in a vacuum.

Is it false if the reactants in a rocket motor react at a rate that is greater than what the rocket motor was designed, internal pressure can built to the point the rocket motor will explode even if the outlet is open to the vacuum of space.

A more simple example. A rocket motor designed to have a five inch outlet while working in the vacuum of space operates as designed. If the same reaction rate for a rocket with a 5 inch outlet was to take place in a rocket motor with only a 3/4 inch outlet, the rocket motor will probably explode even if it’s open to a vacuum.

You cannot ignore reaction rates and nozzle design, and how they are used to maintain internal pressure of a rocket motor while in space.

edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

And you never explained:

How mirrors got on the moon used to measure the distance to the moon by bouncing earth based lasers off those mirrors.

How the pieces of the international space station got to space.

How people get back and forth to and from the ISS.

How satellites providing internet, TV, GPS, and wether data services got into orbit.

There is no reasonable doubt Satellites are in earth’s orbit and utilized. Satellites are a real thing, in orbit, tracked, spotted, monitored, tuned into to, broadcasted to, and proving tangible services.
edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Right now astronomers are bitching about SpaceX's recent spewing of a multitude of satellites into orbit to provide satellite internet:

www.parabolicarc.com...

darksky.org...

There will be no explanation for that either.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

No. This is it in a nut shell. The reactants undergo a reaction the gives them kinetic energy and pressures up the combustion chamber. It doesn’t mater what the outlet pressures at the rocket nozzle is in the following context. As long as the exiting gas moves out the nozzle exit with velocity, has mass, and kinetic energy, it’s going to expand in all directions and collide with the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle.

Think about it this way. A Saturn V rocket had a mass of 6,540,000 lb. 80 percent of the rocket was fuel as a rough thumb rule. The rocket between all its stages shot over 5,232,000 pounds of mass with kinetic energy out it’s various nozzles that collided against the walls of the rocket motor fulfilling Newton’s third law to create thrust.

F’n gradient pressure force is not what pressurized the rocket motor and gave kinetic energy to the expanding gas exiting the rocket motor. The type of reaction and the rate of the reaction in the rocket motor resulted in the kinetic energy of the exiting gases.
edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 1-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Or think about it this way. A molecule of gas doesn’t give a rip if it’s in the “vacuum” of space. If that molecule has mass and speed, it has kinetic energy. And since there is little to slow down that moving molecule in space is going to keep moving a long time. If that moving molecule of gas hits something in the vacuum of space, it’s still going to hit with a force.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You’d think there’d be millions of individual sightings posted on YouTube but there only a few lol



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Just like wind moves air due to pressure gradient, the exhaust moves due to pressure gradient. This cause the molecules to move in one direction independent of the rocket



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

You clearly do not know what you speak of.

Air is confined by Earth's gravity and the Earth's surface. When air gets heated by the Sun or other means, the air molecules are bouncing around colliding with other air molecules and the ground with more energy. The extra energy causes the air to expand, and the air moves itself. However the air has nowhere to go because it can't escape Earth's gravity and also collides with the ground. This causes an increase in pressure. The only direction the air can travel is to lower pressure areas such as cold air which doesn't have enough energy (pressure) to stop the hot air.

The molecules are moving themselves and creating the pressure gradient. The pressure gradient doesn't make the molecules move. You still have that backwards. This is something you seem to have trouble understanding.
edit on 2-6-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Just like wind moves air due to pressure gradient, the exhaust moves due to pressure gradient. This cause the molecules to move in one direction independent of the rocket


You can not ignore the actual reaction of the fuel and oxidizer. You act like there is no reaction going on that consumes large masses of reactants that generate heat and expanding exhaust gasses with large amounts of resultant kinetic energy colliding with the rocket motor walls.

What you are doing is acting like there is no reaction in a rocket motor, and ignoring the design a rocket motor built to maintain pressure and specific expansion of the exhaust gasses.

For the thousand time. Reactants are injected into a combustion chamber. It’s essential a controlled explosion. If it wasn’t for the combustion chamber, the expanding gasses would expand is a sphere. The gasses expand because the reaction gave them kinetic energy. It doesn’t mater if the reaction took place at 14.7 psig, or in a vacuum. When confined to a combustion chamber, the throat of the nozzle, and the provided surface area of the nozzle, the molecules of the exhaust gasses are given kinetic energy by the reaction in the combustion chamber. The actual collisions with the rocket motor walls by the exhaust gas molecules moving with kinetic energy are what create the equal and opposite reaction that results in thrust. The exhaust gasses are expanding and still colliding with the nozzle walls when they exit the motor by design. The gas moving into the “vacuum” of space is still moving with great velocity and still has kinetic energy.

Again, the throat of the rocket engine is used to maintain pressure in the combustion chamber in connection with specific types of reactants and reaction rates. The nozzle of the rocket motor is used to achieve a desired expansion of the exit gasses.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

And rockets work beyond a doubt in a vacuum because we utilize the technology provided by satellites deployed by rocket every second of every day. And you can track, spot, sight, monitor, tune into broadcasts, utilized information broadcasted by satellites.

And there is no doubt the international space station is in orbit around the earth. You can spot it, track it, and photograph it for yourself.
edit on 2-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Lol if the average person could spot it, I’d know at least one person that did. There would be millions of YouTube vids like fortnite. I’m sure there are more space fans than fortnite fans



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

I have seen the ISS pass over many times. Would not make a very interesting video, though. So, Youtube is your preferred source of evidence? That figures.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Lol if the average person could spot it, I’d know at least one person that did. There would be millions of YouTube vids like fortnite. I’m sure there are more space fans than fortnite fans


What the hell does that have to do with satellites are a real thing.

One of my favorite birds is the King Fisher. I bet there isn’t millions of “YouTube vid” featuring the King Fisher.

Why would the normal person go Satellite spotting when they use the technology daily?

One of the saddest things I experienced with my stay at a Mexico resort on the beach. I would go down to watch the sun rise over the ocean every morning. I was often the only guest on the beach. People are lazy. Many people choose not to post on YouTube.

Now...
Again..
Besides we know rockers work in space because of:
Satellite TV
Satellite internet
GPS Satellites
Satellite phones
Satellite weather tracking and surveys
Satellite mapping of earth by radar, thermal imaging, UV light.....
Mirrors left on moon used to measure distance
Hubble space telescopes
Various countries space missions to map the moon
The international space station
Skylab space station
The Mir space station
You can actually see satellites and the international space station from earth
Missions to map and explore Mars
Missions to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, asteroids, comets...........

Prove satellites people utilize, and the International space station that people witness in the night sky are not there.
edit on 3-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 3-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: neutronflux

Lol if the average person could spot it, I’d know at least one person that did. There would be millions of YouTube vids like fortnite. I’m sure there are more space fans than fortnite fans


It is not in the least bit surprising that you don't know anyone.

At the festival I attended the weekend before last I was dancing with a friend to drum and bass at an outdoor stage very late at night with lots of other people. I spotted it and pointed it out to my friend. Someone next to us, a random stranger, saw us looking, turned, and with no prompting said 'space station'. There was even a post on the event's Facebook page dedicated to when it would be visible.

Lots of people are interested in space. Like the ISS, your lack of belief in them doesn't mean they don't exist.
edit on 3/6/2019 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join