Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

In fact, it does make a lot of sense.
NASA is collecting not millions, but billions of dollars in funding from the US gov.(Tax payer money) far a space program.
So I think most of the people concerned with the matter are US tax payers.

This equation is incomplete, the vacuum acts on the expanding propellant.

Newton's third law does work in space, but where one of the opposite forces is in the form of an expanding gas in order to push the rocket IN A VACUUM, Newton's law is misapplied.

This is where you and the OP keep running up against a brick wall, over and over and over again.

The vacuum doesn't come into play here at all. What is at the other end of the rocket nozzle is irrelevant. ALL of the physics involved in this propulsion are occurring inside the tank, and within the nozzle. The propulsion isn't being generated by the gas in the nozzle pushing against something outside the nozzle.

The propulsion is being generated by the bottleneck of where the nozzle meets the tank. The gas inside the tank is trying to go everywhere. Imagine little red arrows indicating direction of force, and inside the tank those little red arrows are all over the place, pointing in all directions. But they can't go anywhere, because it's a closed container. One of those arrows has found a way out, and points in the direction of the nozzle. YAY, it's a big race, last one out of the tank is a rotten egg. The 'push' that you keep looking for, is happening where the high amount of pressure at the entrance to the nozzle is fiercely pushing all the little gas people down the nozzle.

That's where the 'push' is happening. What is at the end of the nozzle where the gas is escaping into the vacuum has *nothing to do with the entire process*.

Don't F*#king do that, just correct him if he appears to be incorrect.

The ONLY thing required for pressure based propulsion, is contents under pressure escaping in a controlled fashion into an area of lesser pressure. The vacuum of space has less pressure than the inside of the rocket, ergo propulsion occurs.

NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas. This is bogus science.

We can say what we want, but in truth, if one doesn't experience, then one doesn't know.

Well excuse me, or maybe excuse you. But I have to repeat myself and add that I never agreed that the fuel is pushing against anything. However if you followed my post you would see I have covered what you tried to explain. And at this point it's ridiculous to explain again.
The concept that you people have that the vacuum is not causing any effect on the equation of an expanding gas being harnessed to thrust a craft forward is BOGUS SCIENCE!

Last Edited by Kyros Nox on 03/30/2012 11:01 PM

Corrections sir/madam.
On earth the outside will be of lesser pressure than the inside of the rocket.
In the vacuum of space, there is a vacuum (I like to say negative pressure), which will aid (I don't like to say suck) the expansion of these gases preventing thrust. kapiche!

Remember the rocket is not expanding, just the gases.

Last Edited by Kyros Nox on 03/30/2012 11:09 PM

Once again, what you aren't understanding, what most of the world understands except you, what an entire agency of scientists understands except you, what many 8th grade children understand except you, is that the expansion of the gas into the vacuum isn't what's causing the propulsion.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Propulsion for dummies:

[link to s18.postimage.org]

that is incorrect. Lower orbit makes the object to get friction with more dense atmosphere layers, hence reducing the speed and reducing the momentum

complete fail..

Again with the orbit fail.

The reason why the moon isn't sitting on the face of the planet, is because of the speed at which it's traveling. In relation to the earth, it is climbing away at an angle, but since it is moving around a sphere, it's continuously being pulled back towards the sphere. If it goes at the exact right speed, it reaches a balance where it is escaping at an angle at the same rate at which it's path is being re-adjusted back towards the sphere.

It is simply an object in motion through space, who's direction of motion is constantly being adjusted by a sphere.


[link to s17.postimage.org]

You are right in that the counter-pressure of atmosphere makes a rocket motor less efficient there. It also requires a different design; it is difficult to design a single motor that is at maximum efficiency both in and out of the atmosphere.

That said, it is counter-intuitive, but due to the supersonic velocity of the exiting gas, pressure at the nozzle can actually be (and is even designed to be) less than ambient.

Corrections Again Sir/Madam.
I never said the expansion of gases into a vacuum causes propulsion. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? Are you running from the facts? or are you trying to buy time to make up a ridiculous story?

Last Edited by Kyros Nox on 03/31/2012 01:23 AM

Newton 2 is about momentum. Conservation of momentum.
Suppose you are on s frictionless surface - you are on blades on ice, say. Now you throw a heavy ball in any direction.
After you have recovered your balance you will me moving slowly backwards.
Why? You gave the ball some momentum in some direction. That momentum has to come from somewhere. It comes from you the thrower. That is why you are now moving slowly in the opposite direction of where you threw the ball.

That there is any air has nothing to do with it.

Facts? The 'Facts' are that an imbecile who doesn't understand basic physics is trying to assert that every scientist and physics engineer on the planet is wrong, and he, a random idiot on the internet, has it all figured out.

I ask you, what is more likely? That thousands and thousands of people who have devoted their entire lives to studying and practically experimenting in physics and propulsion are wrong, and that a guy sitting infront of his computer armed only with a bag of cheetos and a degree in Advanced Googling is right...

Or that maybe, just maybe, that one guy with his degree in Advanced Googling just isn't getting one or more of the concepts involved in propulsion within a vacuum?

Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.

In the universe/omniverse there can never be a place where there is no atmosphere and no vacuum, it's has to be one of the two.

First to begin, let me correct your comment.
1) We are dealing in space not earth.
2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.

So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball). Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.

A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket forward. Hence this concept will not work in the vacuum of space.

Now everything was all cool until a fucking over emotional cock licker like you had to open his stinking mouth and pollute the forum.

Just post like everyone else you damn bitch.

Now where were we?

I think you need to revised the forum and realise that it is essentially based on nasa lying to the people. So scientist that you speak of have no more proof than a theory and depends on/misapplies Newton's third law of motion. Smoke a fucking cigarette and learn some fucking science you cunt!!!

Nah, you need to go 'revised' a physics book, preferably one that doesn't have cartoons in it, maybe then you'll be able to talk physics with the big boys.

Or maybe you're just an example of what Trinidad teaches their students. The more that I think about it, the more I realize I'm probably arguing Newtonian motion with someone that shits in a hole in the ground.

So....if instead of hot gas, if the space vehicle were to throw a heavy ball behind it then it would actually be able to propel itself?

What if instead of a heavy ball, it threw ten smaller balls? What if it threw a hundred bullets? A thousand BB's? What if it threw billions of little balls, each with a mass on the order of a 10^-23 of a gram?

hmmm....a novel approach...it just might work...

so thats why GPS, Direct TV, Sirrus Radio and all the other satellites would never work either......right??????? Are you in the 4th grade or something?

Nah, Trinidad.

What, you didn't buy that explanation huh? Didn't appeal to you then. Hahaha good...gooood Neo.

My goodness, I really wanna understand what you're trying to say here but can't quite get my head around it. You've gotta be kidding, right? That's rhetorical 'cause I know you're not. And if you are kidding, nice troll Hahaha.