Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

yes, interesting. this company also built the shuttle space suit and various components for the shuttle. I was both a manufacturing and quality engineer during my time there.

That is the biggest problem rocketeers have. With no change in internal energy ( heat ) of the rocket gasses, no work is done, there is simply no way round this problem !

Were you ever asked to compromise your integrity when you worked there?

No, never. There were hundreds of engineers ie design, material, quality, manufacturing etc. etc. Plus it had government inspection people on-site. A lot of different specialized people with a common goal to design, manufacture and deliver hardware.

Glad to hear it, so you never had to be economical with l'actualite ?

No, there's nothing really sensitive about the hardware we built. There were some secret programs, but i didn't have clearence.

I see, because there are times when it is acceptable to withold or bend the truth about such work, for instance when you are talking to a commercial rival, suspected Russian spy, Chinese snooper, conspiracy theorist or industrial spy.

It all sounds very interesting though. Do you have an idea how to reconcile Joule free expansion with the rockets in a vacuum that you saw ?

No, that is a question for a design engineer. I was in the manufacturing end of it. As long as it met the test parameters after it was manufactured it was good to go.

The only thing i could tell you about the design aspect of a rocket is that the expanding gas leaves the combustion chamber at super sonic speed.

Vacuum = from the word vacant, or void. An empty space.

I don't think men landed on the moon, but it has nothing to do with rockets not working in space...

Or the Earth being flat!

Its just a very long way to go, and very difficult (except if you have late 60s technology, apparently).

No that is very useful thanks. Something in my memory from long ago. Something about changing flow regimes. Compressible flow, choked flow. Something about supersonic flow, I will have to think about this.....

I believe that we did go to the moon, but sometimes the 'we didn't crowd' brings up some seemingly valid points.

At this company i worked at, they also built the shuttle suit for nasa. A friend of mine in the same dept volunteered to don a suit and be put into a very large vacuum chamber with various electrodes attached to his body. He didn't get into a lot of detail, but he did mention that they stuck an thermal-couple up his butt. don't know why im telling you this except that it's friday and was damn funny.

Nobody?

Free expansion applies to a closed system and rockets in a vacuum do not.

OK.... But the USSR never made it why? Because they gave up??? LOL. Considering the sunk cost (unrecoverable) why would they quit?

Or because it was beyond technical capabilities then, and even today?

They don't jump high and they don't lift heavy objects effortlessly. Therefore it was a hoax. Open and shut.

I mean, some of these astronauts were test pilots, real hotdoggers, joking and laughing, but no one decided to see if he could jump higher than 3 feet, over 6 missions! WHAT!

I'm not here to debate any of this. I just wanted to throw in some information based on my work experiences.

Believe what you want.

They had an active program until 1974. They didn't make it because their heavy-lifting booster, the N-1, never made it off the launch pad without exploding. So in a way it was beyond THEIR technical abilities but it wasn't beyond technical abilities in general.


They found when they jumped higher they tended to tip over backwards due to being top-heavy with the PLSS. They preferred not to fall on the equipment keeping them alive. They did lift heavy objects. Some of the experiments were large, the rover, rocks, etc.


Except they did.

Nope, free expansion implies that as the gas "expands against a vacuum it does no work" that is all. since the internal energy and hence temperature of the gas stays the same ( no work is done ) then p1V1=p2V2. V2 can be as big as you like, all a bigger V2 does is just make p2 smaller, as you would expect with gas expanding into a vacuum. The size of V2 has no effect on the fundamental property of the system, that gasses expanding freely do no work. [link to www.pha.jhu.edu]

They had an active program until 1974. They didn't make it because their heavy-lifting booster, the N-1, never made it off the launch pad without exploding. So in a way it was beyond THEIR technical abilities but it wasn't beyond technical abilities in general.


They found when they jumped higher they tended to tip over backwards due to being top-heavy with the PLSS. They preferred not to fall on the equipment keeping them alive. They did lift heavy objects. Some of the experiments were large, the rover, rocks, etc.


Except they did.


When did they 'find' this? Just link the footage of them jumping and tipping over backwards. And footage of lifting objects of a known weight (like a fellow astronaut, for e.g.). And then some footage of them jumping (with feet and surface visible) higher than 3 ft.

Easy!

When did they 'find' this? Just link the footage of them jumping and tipping over backwards. And footage of lifting objects of a known weight (like a fellow astronaut, for e.g.). And then some footage of them jumping (with feet and surface visible) higher than 3 ft.

Easy!

Wrong. Always described in a closed system.

This is STILL being discussed? So how about the secret control capsules in sharks, piloted by mentally disturbed oucast aliens from planet X that fly around the Earth all the time? You can't see them because they have blanked out part of the brain with ethereal guck static which is also a way to trick us into thinking that rockets won't work or else we might get into orbit and find out about the huge alien sex orgies and want to be invited, but no space shark so no invite. I'm right about this.

And once the Apollo-Soyuz project began, why didn't the Soviets just ask for a Saturn V, or at the very least the designs? Hm?

And amazing how America's rockets were (supposedly) superior, and yet today they use Russian rockets, isn't it?

Amazing that the N1 and Saturn V were almost the same size, but Saturn V had a payload to TLI TWICE that of the N1? Does that make sense?

Pah, you guys are always barking up the wrong tree. It's not the system boundary that makes the expansion adiabatic, it's the fact that it is expanding into a vacuum and hence can not do any work. How can work be done when there is no medium to do work against ?? I'm beginning to think you lot belong to some sort of religious cult. The cult of adiabatic expansion can only happen into a tiny evacuated box and not the endless vacuum of deep space.

You think they've got green chicks up there? I'd love to do a green babe

How come rockets always end up going sideways and not directly straight up? How come there is no footage of a rocket entering space? How come all NASA pictures are fake CGI? How com all the planets NASA take pictures of are the same except for the color of the planet/moon? How come none of the 25000 satellites in view when NASA takes picture of Earth?

Because they were still not buddy-buddy. They had a half partnership.


Only for manned trips and only because Congress didn't fund a replacement before retiring the shuttle. Satellites are still often launched with american made rockets.



Yes, when you consider the extra weight, and therefore reduced fuel and payload, because of all the extra plumbing. The Saturn V had 5 large engines in its first stage. The N-1 had 30.

Wrong. Always described in a closed system.

Because that's how orbits work. They have to get above th atmosphere but they also have to attain a high enough velocity laterally.


How come you think there isn't?


Why do you think they are? Can you prove it?


They aren't.


Space is big. Satellites are small.
Satellites are on average the size of a car or smaller. The area they orbit in is far larger than the surface of the Earth. Scatter 25,000 people around the Earth and they'll likely never see each other. Scatter them in an area even bigger and set them in orbits designed to not intersect and you get the same thing.

AGAIN, rockets don't need a medium to work against. They never have. The simple act of expelling a hell of a lot of mass out the back end pushes it forward.