thrust in space is false physics

[I doubt the science]

a closed system on Earth produces thrust

an open system on Earth produces some thrust

an open system in space produces no thrust.

Mars missions are a lie

moon landings were the birth of all space lies

I beg any brilliant man to prove that any space suit right now and especially 1970's technology could withstand the vacuum!

complete vacuum wants to remove any and every essence of gas.

moon landings are impossible for so many more reasons.

that NASA will achieve 100% success on the first attempt is ridiculous!

once a rocket has used up all force of resistance from Earths atmosphere then it becomes useless.

carefully watch how the exhaust plume expands to virtually perpendicular to down thrust and to 90 degrees and beyond

and once in the vacuum of space the plume becomes 360 degrees.

no rocket goes anywhere...no moon... no Mars... no voyager...absolutely nothing goes nowhere

the physics is implausible... as demanded by those who demonstrate fantasy with histrionics and Hollywood.

according to NASA... if I punch a hole in the (fake) ISS... then the escaping gas will propel the structure in the opposite direction.

exactly like saying that if I punch a hole in a submarine it will then move in my direction according to the displacement of the water.

coincidentally... why do engineers place important machinery on the inside of a submarine?

and choose to place important machinery on the outside of an 'ISS"

when are submariners required to make repairs on the exterior of a machine at submariner depths?

The ISS is the complete reverse but with pressures accordingly likewise probably more severe

the entire concept of an ISS and 'space walks' is a fantasy

NASA is a HUGE business and diversion that has gone way too far.

Mars rover 'Sols' take place on Devon Island Canada

likewise Cinder Lake crater field mimicked the fake moon landing.

imagine making a 2 mile wide construct of a place on the moon... as a proposed landing site

and then actually landing on that same site?  first time first go... 

space is fiction... there is no thrust in anti-gravity vacuum conditions.

discuss

 

[Bufofrog]

Thanks for clearing that up!  According to what you wrote, does that means aliens aren't really traveling to earth to visit bigfoot?

[Ghideon]

54 minutes ago, I doubt the science said:

and once in the vacuum of space the plume becomes 360 degrees.

Do you mind providing some evidence or arguments about why you believe that to be the case? 

Mainstream models of physics disagree with your statement. If you prefer some videos showing how it works you could google for "vacuum chamber rocket experiment".

 

[I doubt the science]

I have no evidence Ghideon... thankyou for asking.

my argument is simply my underdstanding of 'everything' and of 'nothing'.

I have watched numerous rocket launches and have wondered at the expanding thrust plume.

at launch the thrust is concentrated quite vertical...and during ascent the thrust expands.

I consider that the energy, the force wants to capitalize on all the available atmosphere.

as the atmosphere thins out to nothing.... the thrust plume becomes completely absorbed by the surrounding vacuum

and then therefore any previous directive force is nullified.

I agree that 360 degrees might seem unusual?... but without any resistance throughout the vacuum?

I see no other way.

since the resistance is zero then all forces are returned to the object evenly and it remains stationary.

 

 

Bufofrog... I have no information about what the Aliens might be doing.?

I sure know what you are doing... and although expected,  it's unhelpful.

amusing?... 

all you have offered are insults so far.

I am waiting for the next one

[Endy0816]

Sit in a rolling chair and throw a heavy object. What happens?

 A rocket moves for the same reason.

[Ghideon]

5 minutes ago, I doubt the science said:

I see no other way.

You have selected the correct forum then. Here you could ask questions for instance about for instance
-How rocket engine works in vacuum
-What the laws of physics and mainstream science predict
-How to make calculations of the above
-References to reliable material

There are plenty of rather skilled members that will provide answers.

 

9 minutes ago, I doubt the science said:

my argument is simply my underdstanding of 'everything' and of 'nothing'.

Are you familiar with the basics of Newton? That could be a good start to understand what physics have to say about rocket takeoff and thrust in vacuum.

[Janus]

16 minutes ago, I doubt the science said:

I have no evidence Ghideon... thankyou for asking.

my argument is simply my underdstanding of 'everything' and of 'nothing'.

I have watched numerous rocket launches and have wondered at the expanding thrust plume.

at launch the thrust is concentrated quite vertical...and during ascent the thrust expands.

I consider that the energy, the force wants to capitalize on all the available atmosphere.

as the atmosphere thins out to nothing.... the thrust plume becomes completely absorbed by the surrounding vacuum

and then therefore any previous directive force is nullified.

I agree that 360 degrees might seem unusual?... but without any resistance throughout the vacuum?

I see no other way.

since the resistance is zero then all forces are returned to the object evenly and it remains stationary.

 

 

 

You've actually gotten this backwards.

A simple explanation on how a rocket works.

First, you have to understand what a gas is. It is basically a bunch of loose molecules traveling at various speeds and bouncing off each other.  If you put a gas in a container, these molecules also bounce off the walls of the container.   The pressure felt by the walls is the net result of all those molecules bouncing off off them.  If you were surround such a container with vacuum. it would be able to hold on the gas as long as it was strong enough to resist the pressure of the molecules bouncing off the interior walls.  In other words, as long as the difference* in pressure inside and outside did not exceed the strength of the material used for the container, everything will be fine.  If we were to suddenly remove the walls of the container,  A molecule that would have hit a wall and bounced off, just keeps going.  The gas expands out into the vacuum, not because of some "pulling" force by the vacuum, but simply because there in no longer anything preventing them from traveling on in straight line.

With our totally enclosed container the gas molecules are bouncing off all the walls evenly. As they hit the walls, they push on it, but molecules pushing on one wall are balanced out by molecules pushing on the opposite wall, so the net forces result in no net movement of the container in any direction.

But if you cut a hole in one side of the container, the molecule that would have hit this part of the container are free to fly outward.  This means they do not exert a force on the container, and do not balance out the force of the molecules hitting the wall opposite the hole.  You get an imbalance of forces acting the container, resulting in a net force in one direction and you get movement of the container. You have the basis of a rocket  motor.

Note that this effect does not rely on there being anything outside of the container for it to produce motion of the container.  In fact,  having air outside makes the rocket work worse.

The air outside is just like the gas inside. it is a bunch of molecules in motion.  These molecules are bouncing off the exterior of the container, exerting a inward force, which partially cancels out the outward force by the interior gas.  As a result, the net outward force the gas has on the interior of the container is the difference between the outside and inside pressures.

Adding outside air reduces this difference. As a result, when you put the opening in the container, the net force imbalance on the the container is lower, and the net movement of the container less.   IOW, rockets work more efficiently in a vacuum than they do in the atmosphere.

As far as the gas dispersing goes.  Some of this is due to the fact that not all the exhaust gasses leaving the rocket do so in a straight line to the rocket (Though rocket engine nozzles are designed to get as close as possible to this ideal.)     While still in the atmosphere, there is another factor, the molecules in the exhaust are striking and bouncing off air molecules and being scattered.   Interacting with the atmosphere adds an extra dispersing factor for the exhaust.

In a vacuum, the exhaust gasses just want to keep going in the direction they already are, so any dispersion is just do to the small variation in their initial direction leaving the rocket engine.  With the container of gas discussed earlier, the gas spread out uniformly when we removed the container because the molecules all had velocities in different directions.  With a rocket exhaust, they all start with with velocities pointing almost in the same direction, and they will continue to move in that direction.

 

* This ties in with your argument about spacesuits.  All a space suit has to endure is the difference between inside pressure. It doesn't matter whether that is 17 psi inside and 14 psi outside or 3 psi inside and 0 psi (a vacuum) outside.   I used the 3 psi number because that is all a spacesuit really has to resist. While the normal air we breathe is at 14 psi, only a fraction of that is the oxygen we really use.  If you removed all the other gases, you get pure oxygen at about 3 psi and we can breathe 3 psi of pure oxygen just as easily.  Thus spacesuits are designed for 3-4 psi of oxygen and only have to contain this much pressure difference.

It seems a bit odd to claim that a spacesuit can't hold a pressure of 3 psi, when automobile tires routinely contain more than 40 psi  in pressure difference.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This is the physics section, not Rant-o-Rama.

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Trash