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.
More BS, that is not how it works. The rocket is producing "energy" in the form of thrust, but if it has nothing to push against, resistance, then it is wasted energy. WHY do people continue to not get it? In earths atmosphere we have molecules in the air, and when we have displacement, then we have an equal and opposite reaction. But in the VACUUM of space, the energy is a total LOSS!!
On that we can agree. Would you care to post any of your sources for where you came up with this idea that Newton's third law somehow doesn't apply in space? Any textbooks or reference websites you can link to? Anything? I'd love to know what you are studying that gave you this deeply flawed understanding of mechanics.
Originally posted by daddio
Man I wish more people would actually STUDY physics and then post findings.
Originally posted by daddio
You people crack me up. I believed at one time too, then I slowly learned the truth and met people who could back up what others were claiming. Found it quite interesting. Then after sitting down with a computer model and seeing what it would have taken, in 1969, no way. The "Tetris' satellite project was one of the greatest blunders. But who really cares anymore, we didn't go, never will go. I am certain of that.
More BS.....
The rocket is producing "energy" in the form of thrust, but if it has nothing to push against, resistance, then it is wasted energy.
In earths atmosphere we have molecules in the air, and when we have displacement, then we have an equal and opposite reaction.
I worked in a lab, in zero gravity is different from VACUUM!!!!
What a joke.
QUESTION:
How can you change your heading in space without air?
ANSWER from Eric Hammer on April 1, 1997:
Since space is a near vacuum. Without air, there is no way to generate aerodynamic lift. The Space Shuttle has 46 different rocket engines. Two of these are called the OMS (orbital maneuvering system) engines and are able to move in different directions to help guide the Space Shuttle. The other 44 engines are smaller and do not move. By firing different combinations of these engines, the Space Shuttle is able to move in any direction.
Once again also, the voyager 2 space probe was traveling at over 68,000 miles an hour when it left our solar system, it could travel that fast because there was NO DRAG in the form of molecules that worked against it....
..... you can travel at the speed of light if you can get going that fast.
....get a freakin education before you post crap.
Because it's an efficient use of energy. Why waste propellant when you can get gravity to help out?
Originally posted by daddio
My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect.
Originally posted by daddio
...My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect. Point the vehicle where you want it to go and fire a rocket "booster", with no resistance, the vehicle would accelerate until you could somehow slow it...
some times i'm surprised by ats members answers... however rockets do work in space ,i thought this was common knowledge ..the use of thrusters are there, only for minor adjustments in flight paths ect..anyway the bigger question was ..did uncle sam make it to the moon and back..well nasa are saying they landed on the moon 6 times......Nine Apollo missions went to the Moon, of which six landed. Each carried three people, two of whom landed on the Moon while one stayed with the command and service module in lunar orbit. The crews for each mission were as follows:
Originally posted by nataylor
Because it's an efficient use of energy. Why waste propellant when you can get gravity to help out?
Originally posted by daddio
My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect.
Originally posted by sitchin
...but there is a easier way to prove one way or another..a simple hd mapping of the moon would prove or disprove uncle sams claims of been on the old cheese ...
....someone will claim that NASA could have got the 3D data back in the 1960's....
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Illustronic
Yes -- I agree that the way Apollo 15's pictures of Mount Hadley exactly matching the data from Selene is extremely good evidence that Apollo 15 was really there.
However, as always, someone will claim that NASA could have got the 3D data back in the 1960s and built an exact replica of Mount Hadley back on Earth as part of the Apollo 15 Moon. But I would think it would be easier just to go to the friggin' Moon.
Originally posted by backinblack
Well if you believe the hoax then that's not quite true.
Most believe they only created a stage with a foreground and the background images were a projection or blue screen concept..
Therefore they didn't have to recreate the mountains..
They would however need good pics..