Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

Wkrong. You are giving magical properties to the vacuum. It can't change the direction of the air molecules in motion. You are claiming that nothing (the vacuum) is doing something (work). In reality those air molecules keep on moving the same direction they were before the hull breach. They'll eventually make it to the opening but not before bouncing around inside. Those bounces are what is creating the force opposite the breach. No outside air needed to push against.

So zero work is done when pressurized gasses move from an enclosure to the vacumm.

Are you sure about that?

Not what I said. Work is not done by a vacuum. The vacuum will not change direction of the gasses.

So then work is done by the pressurized gasses while joining with the vacuum?

If work is not done on "the vacuum" side it must be done by the gasses according to you.

And those pressurized gasses push in all directions on the container they are in. since they escape on one side they don't push as much on that side thus creating a force in the opposite direction. AKA thrust with the force inside the vehicle and nothing external needed to push against.

You only took the bait partially.

How does a gas push against an opposite direction in a combustion chamber when that chamber has an open connection via the nozzle to a vacuum?

You are aware of the thermodynamical Free Expansion principle I assume? Gasses expanding into a vacuum do not push against anything.

Indeed NO WORK is done while gasses expand into a vacuum as proven by Joule in his Free Expansion experiment.

No work = No force = No thrust

F = -F but as F = 0 on both sides no thrust can be generated.

NASA claims (like you) that an enclosed system in a vacuum can create thrust simply by burning a mixture of LOX and Kerosine and letting the resulting pressurized gas eject through a nozzle into the vacuum of space.

The moment the gas is created is expands into the vacuum.
There is no opposing force in a vacuum.
The gas produces no work.
The gas produces no thrust.

F = -0

done.

you are applying it incorrectly. For it to work the way you propose the vacuum would have to do work and change the direction of the gas molecules. Further, the combustion chamber is not in a vacuum.


gas is not a magical ethereal substance that instantly vanishes in a vacuum, but a collection of individual molecules or atoms, each of which behaves just like a tiny solid object. It keeps going in the same direction at the same velocity until it hits either another gas molecule or the walls of the rocket engine. Since they're all going in random directions to start, the only way to get most of them to leave the rocket through the nozzle is to let them bounce repeatedly off the inside walls and each other until they finally go in the right direction and leave. It's those bounces -- otherwise known as gas pressure -- that impart(s) thrust. Most of them cancel each other, but that very last bounce is the one that does nearly all the work that molecule will do for us.

Explain STEREO.

Can you read?

The combustion chamber is connected to the vacuum via the nozzle and hence is constantly and INSTANTLY vacated into the vacuum.



Prove STEREO.

Instantly? So in your world the vacuum magically does work on gas, changing its direction and volume and it does so taking no time at all? And you believe that?




So you can't explain it then. Got it.

Now you are simply being dishonest.

You are trying to sell gas molecules happily bouncing around freely in and acting on a combustion chamber while outside of that chamber is an infinite vacuum. Pressure differential anyone?

Nature acts by trying to equalize the difference in pressure. How? ALL the little gas molecules travel at 2000 km/s in the direction of the vacuum. And no, they do not generate any thrust by pushing against the opposite side of the chamber. And yes, the transition from inside to outside the chamber is INSTANT and explosive in nature. The gas expands into the vacuum without doing any work. Free Expansion remember?

A free expansion is typically achieved by opening a stopcock that allows the gas to expand into a vacuum.

And

During free expansion, no work is done by the gas.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Given the fact that the chamber is in direct contact with the vacuum of space via the nozzle three is no need to open any "stopcock". The expansion of the gas is continuous.

The work and thrust generated remain 0 while in a vacuum.



I certainly do not accept any explanation involving rocket engines using gasses to bring anything past LEO. In fact even that seems implausible but for slight maneuvers using Hydrazine fueled RCS systems.

You do realize that eventually the world will understand NASA is not telling the truth about space flight right?

If there is a pressure differential, there is pressure. If there is pressure it presses in all directions. So it WILL push on the opposite side of the chamber at the same time it is pressing the gasses into the vacuum.
If, as you claim, they all travel in the direction of the vacuum, then something has to change that direction. Something has to do work. And if it isn't pressing in all directions then you no longer have pressure. You can't have it both ways.

your free expansion reference is talking about a closed volume by the way. The only reason there is no work is because there is still an opposite side of the chamber. It is still balanced on all sides.



It is hilarious that you think NASA has a monopoly on space.

The pressure generated by the creation of the gas itself is instantly equalized. What you are trying to sell is that a rocket pushes against itself via the gas via the combustion chamber and thus creates thrust in the opposite direction.

Absurd. Newton would belly laugh.



O really? So if I open an air container in a vacuum work is done on the container? How? You seem to fail to understand Joule's findings with regards to Free Expansion which are one of the fundamentals of thermodynamics.



They do. And yes you cannot play if you are not part of their little club. That includes ESA, SpaceX etc etc etc.

There's that "instant" claim again. In the real world, things take time. For it to be instant there would need to be an infinite force causing it. There would also need to be instant communication between all the atoms that there is a vacuum on one side. So you're claiming an instant action (laughable), infinite force (more laughable) and instant communication (hilarious).

And no, Newton would understand it and agree with it.


Read your own reference again. It deals with a closed volume.



China too? Hilarious that NASA is supposedly all powerful yet you have no evidence of such.

2000 m/s sounds pretty fast to me, almost instant as "in an instant". You are trying to steer away from the essence of the issue by petty word games.



Which - again - is completely besides the point.
The fact that no work is done has nothing to do with the fact that it is a closed volume but everything to do with the effects of something that has pressure meeting a vacuum.

No work - No thrust.

Next thing you will claim someone can maneuver in space using a fire-extinguisher.


Yes user 47938245, China too. I enjoyed their under water EVA. Pity about the unscheduled co2 bubbles though.

So not instant then. Which orifice are you pulling the 2000 m/s from?


something that has pressure meeting a vacuum and expanding into a closed space. Everything still balanced because it is closed on all sides. And you still haven't explained STEREO, or any of the other many satellites that are provably up there.



there is no reason why they couldn't.



Bubbles that were square. And a waving flag that showed no resistance like it would if it were underwater.

Again, hilarious that you think NASA is so all-powerful.

Try reading up on effective exhaust velocities for rocket engines. And while you are at it look at nozzle expansion ratios in relation to efficiency. You may find the fact that standard nozzles become exponentially less efficient the less atmosphere the engine is operated in. Another fact NASA cannot explain.



I will not repeat myself. The point is there is no work done while a pressurized gas expands into a vacuum. Period.

Any of your "provable" satellites were not placed into orbit using standard rocket engines because they cannot provide thrust in a vacuum.



I think you have been brainwashed by Hollywood.



They match your thought pattern.

Seeing as how we were originally discussing a room full of pressurized gas exposed to vacuum, it is interesting that you think one of many exhaust velocities should apply.

Nozzles become less efficient but the rocket as a whole is more efficient.


So you keep saying but your only explanation involves a closed system. Otherwise you're giving a vacuum magical properties. It can't change the direction of the gas whether you understand it or not.


So you can't explain them.


Nothing in science says otherwise. Certainly not your misunderstanding of how rockets work.
And you've been brainwashed by the likes of the clueless forum and flat-earthers.


So ignore the fact that the supposed bubbles on the Chinese spacewalk were square. Ignore the fact that the waving flag showed no resistance as it should if it were underwater. Doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion, does it?

Explain STEREO yet?

The records have been written.

Truth will prevail - as always - and sooner than you think.

And at that time a whole lot of people will get their surprise of a life time.

Not sure if your ready for this one, but... I also do not believe the science behind rocketry in deep space. I also believe that everything beyond a LEO is hoaxed. This is a paradigm shift. When the implications are considered it changes the foundation upon many of the belief systems humans have.

I dared take it a step further. I had dismissed the conspiracy theory of a flat earth completely till earlier this year. Upon checking it out I dove in and studied it as far as I could. I do not KNOW if we live on a flat earth or a sphere, but knowing the arguments of the "flat earthers" expands the possibilities of explaining what we DO know.

The explanations given by "flat earthers" coincides with "no rocketry in space" in my opinion. "Flat earthers" suggest the sun moves in an oblique pattern over the flat disc of earth. They suggest the sun is 30 miles in diameter 3000 miles up. If they can put satellites up in a LEO and orbit them in similar paths to that of the sun and moon, then STEREO could have front and back satellites filming the sun.

Of course I do not KNOW this, but then again I do not KNOW man has been to the moon, nor do I KNOW that the earth is a sphere.

Just another possible paradigm shift for you.

Cheers.

Hmm. That seems easy to disprove. I know what you are getting at - the UN flag etc.etc.

I do find it suspicious that Antarctica is controlled using military force below the 60º line South. But then again you can fly to Antarctica and visit the South Pole - no problem. Costs about 50K.

That ofcourse does not disprove a flat earth. The only way to do that is traverse Antarctica in a straight line always keeping the North Pole in a straight line behind you. traverse the South Pole and keep flying until you reach a continent again. You should at least see your compass flip.

Nah. I am pretty sure we are on a globe. But I cannot prove it. It would not surprise me if it were flat though. We have been pretty much been lied to about everything else so why not the shape of the Earth itself.

If we were living on a flat earth that would be a pretty good reason for all the space fakery. It also has some religious implications as bible thumpers would not stop yelling that their book was right and there is a supreme being watching and judging us. Repent repent.

O I forgot. There is this guy that flew a solar plane for five days straight without conventional fuel.

Should I write him and ask if he wants to do a non stop over Antarctica to prove the shape of the Earth?

His name is Andre Boschberg.

[link to www.bbc.com]

Just read he cannot fly in bad weather conditions.

Duh.

But how would you get anything in orbit over a flat plane?

I do not see that working at all really. Is there a model for that?

It simply cannot be. I have seen satellites moving using a scope myself. Unless they were projections of some sort but then we are entering the lala land of complete firmament fakery.

Not so. Escape velocity only applies to un-powered flight, such as a cannonball or bullet. The cannonball must be at escape velocity once it leaves the cannon if it is to leave Earth orbit (ignoring air resistance).

A rocket powered craft can leave Earth orbit at any speed, as long as its constant thrust is greater than the force of gravity.

Escape velocity: It is the speed needed to "break free" from the gravitational attraction of a massive body, without further propulsion, i.e., without spending more propellant.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Eeeh. What?

The escape velocity to break free from Earth you need to travel at least 40.000 km/h no matter what thrust is needed to achieve that speed. So no, a rocket powered craft cannot leave Earth orbit at "any speed".

In fact, a "rocket powered craft" cannot even produce thrust in a vacuum so the only way to escape Earth is either inventing a warp drive or simply die.

Go back to physics 101. Imagine if you will a rocket ship that takes off from Earth at 10 MPH. As long as it maintains that same vertical force provided by the jet engine, it will keep rising until it is far away from the Earth.

Escape velocity only applies to objects in motion that have no source of power.

Whatever bud. You keep saying that. The truth is that rockets work.

I KNOW that the Earth is a sphere. Flat-earthers are as ignorant as they come. If the Sun was only 3000 miles away then its angular size would change throughout the day. It does not.