Propulsion in Space

Best way I can explain it is if you get close to someone and push him/her. Assuming equal weights and stances - you both get pushed back equally.

It's Newton's third law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The nozzle of a rocket focus' the exploding propellant out the back in a single direction, the reaction is a rocket that accelerates. It's basically trading inertia (speed/mass/direction) of the propellant to the rocket. They cancel out if you do it in reverse.

This is why in the movie Interstellar - TARS says "Newton's Third Law: Can't get anywhere without leaving something behind."

yea,but if u push a hologram.. do you or it move?

hey..stupid merkan fuckwit.

ever blown up a balloon and let it go?

Thats right...it accellerates away.

why?

because of internal pressure being greater than external pressure...and the internal pressure only has one way out...thus pushing the ballon away from the greater pressure created by the accellerant escaping out the opening in one direction.

a rocket works the same way.

the vast amount of pressure inside the combustion chamber has only one way out...backwards...thus forcing the rocket forward...and get this you stupid merkan dumbass...there is NO pressure in space..so ANY pressure no matter how great OR small would still propel the rocket with GREATER efficiency than it would through atmosphere..as it would have ZERO pressure at the front..aka..ZERO RESISTANCE...so IN FACT you pathetically braindead uneducated fucktard...the rocket actually WORKS BETTER in space you misbegotten brain dead dickweed.

FUCK ME merkans are a bunch of inbred brainless cocksags.

its no wonder ya cuntry is such a misbegotten SHITHOLE.

I apolagise if the words with more than one syllable were hard to grasp.

Dickheads.

you know in space that brushless pc fan, spins 1.4v 0.006a constantly forever.

Correct answer.

lol...wwowww... if there is no resistance at the front.. then there is no resistance atthe back... your the merkan in yakka clothing...

space would suck the 'propelled' energy into it... its a giant vaccum 'allegedly'

exoteric numbnuts who think their ability to utilise proxy servers gives them an assumed 'IQ'

there would be no 'pressure from outside' the balloon...

you should probably apologise for your terrible attitude, your despotic attitude, and your incoherent ability to know anything....

no need to get ya proxy server in a twist... its just a shame you directed that malicious content through a yakka server...

When you go to space, blow up a balloon and let it go, then tell me what it did... a theory from your box you live in does not carry much evidential persuasion...

if there is no resistance, there is no 'propulsion'.... the 'laws of physics' appear to have merit in our 'atmosphere',

Though you having actual knowledge about the 'actual atmosphere' and 'laws of physics' in space, is questionable to say the very least....

[link to thenibirusunset.wordpress.com (secure)]



Seems other people have the same idea....

this has a very interesting description...

and also has some merit to it...

[youtube] [link to youtu.be (secure)]


not bad there.. lets debunk the balloon theory...lol

These guys who make threads about rockets
not working in vacuum of space and stuff are hoping
nobody actually knows how things work.

I give you this about the SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Notice down on the left side of the graphic where
it says:

CORES
3
ENGINES
27
THRUST AT SEA LEVEL
17,615kN3,969,000 lbf
THRUST IN VACUUM
20,017kN4,500,000 lbf

oh, that URL is [link to www.spacex.com]

go watch myth busters I'm asking questions... and I don't assume to know anything that happens in the space vacuum... I also assume that neither do you... I do have theories, and expect that the magnitude of the bullshit that is fed to the people, that everything is inherently tainted by it...

Neither does anyone.. unless they are flying out there themselves....

which there is no real conclusive evidence other than doctor ed video, and hearsay....

Your knowledge is wrong. Please don’t start this up again. There are several lengthy threads about rockets working or not. Search them out and enjoy.

A link would be helpful...
:)

I never claimed 'knowledge'... of space... or how 'propulsion' occurs in a vacuum... anyway... link me pls

I was very surprised by this statement.

Lol... oh, well I am guessing a Rocket scientist would differ further from an inter galactic propulsion engineer... who has no 'real way' to test his shit..

Anyway, I assume its all just 'smoke and liquid rocket fuel' at the end of the day...

For anyone too stupid to search this site for the word rockets.

Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
Thread: Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

Do rockets work in space?
Thread: Do rockets work in space?

Well, I was assuming you could point me to the good ones... as you seem to have had knowledge.. adding beign stupid is just plain nasty...

No need to get all fructic..

[link to www.quora.com]


'Rockets use Newton's third law as well. In fact, they also use compressed air and fuel in combustion. However in space there is no air, so rockets carry tanks of oxygen (or some other oxidizer) along with tanks of fuel. '

I get what u mean... Though the concept of 'Newtons law' in space, is only 'Newtons theory'.. He had no way to test his theories into 'space law'... everything we know about it is literally hearsay..

I see no real evidence of how the theory has been literally tested...

its all good, I respect the opinions etc.. I just wont be lie ve it...

:)

Well you see, the outer space is not really vacuum:

It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays.


Now,

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

An ion thruster is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion that creates thrust by accelerating ions. The term is strictly used to refer to gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, but may often more loosely be applied to all electric propulsion systems that accelerate plasma, since plasma consists of ions.


Hope this helps.

Well, as I said... the concept of knowing anything about 'space' is something I will naver have conclusive evidence about.. other than hearsay...

I can attest to seeing certain physics and newtonian laws working in the atmosphere.. I have seen that with my own eyes...

Other than that... I can't accept hearsay evidence or video's about inter galactic propulsion, or what space is made up of.. because the evidence I see, is that no human has got that far out there to bring back a 'sample' of the great 'nothingness' that is out there...

I can see how theories can assume and make educated 'guesstimates', though at best, they are only as good as watching Star Wars...

If you were sat in space and you threw a bag of marbles away from yourself, the marbles would move, but also YOU would move in the opposite direction. The faster you throw the marbles the faster you would be moved. If the marbles weighed the same as you you would go in the opposite direction at the same speed. But wven throwing one marble will change the speed of the thrower.

The exhaust gasses ARE the mass thrown out the back at VERY high speed. In fact in a vacuum they exhaust at even higher speed, the rocket works better.

This is the answer, simply put. If you read it and don’t get it, read it again. Repeat until it sinks in. After a while if you haven’t got it you never will. Then move on to something more productive like "is up the opposite of down".

Ok, so if I had the marbles in my hand as I was sat in space, and threw the marbles, but held them clenched in my hand, I would move what way? The muscles in my arm would be the 'propellenant' I cant see me waving my arms about in space creating any movement, I can see the marbles moving because my arm muscles connected to my body propelled them...

the marbles would move at a fast velocity, as my arm is strong and move independently of the 'infinite vacuum' I am suspended in.. I am sorry, though I think you don't get it... or at least try to explain an answer from facts that are not present in the equation?

The marbles would equate to the discharged propellant.. though I as a body would barely move, if at all...

For some reason this dude resonates something I can identify with...


"The shills had several months to find errors in this videos description. Instead, they constantly tried to raise other topics, leaving the description unchallenged. In the process, the topics of whether liquid O and liquid H can even explode in space and how one might initiate an explosion in space were raised. This amended description addresses those new topics. All are requested to find errors and expose them.

We are told that, in space, the apollo 11 rocket used liquid O and liquid H fuel. The fuel and oxidizer were sprayed into the center of the permanently open combustion chamber from a circular set of nozzles toward electrodes that created sparks, splitting the H2 into free H and the O2 into free O. The free O then oxidized the free H, creating heat and water vapor. The heat expanded the gases (including any ambient air) in the chamber which pushed against the chamber wall and accelerated the ship.

None of that works.

First, the vacuum of space is a perfect insulator; no sparks are possible. Until 2 electrodes touch in the vacuum of space, no current can pass between them and, when they do touch, they merely close the circuit without a spark. For those skeptics out there, look up the details of a mercury switch and find out why it doesn't spark!

2nd, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen cannot exist in the vacuum of space. Thanks to the permanently open hole of the combustion chamber, they immediately become gases that expand to fill the infinity of space (Boyle's law). So, even if a spark were possible, the gases would escape the chamber without ever igniting.

Finally, if the gases could be ignited, when the gases expand to hit the wall of the combustion chamber, the lower inertia burning gas (essentially zero) would be moved out of the combustion chamber with little to no effect on the acceleration of the ship. We can see this process at work watching a rocket from blast off to cut off; as the rocket climbs and the air pressure decreases, the exhaust flame gets longer and longer. There is less air pressure to keep the force of the explosion inside the combustion chamber, so more of the combustion occurs outside the chamber, creating a great visual show and no acceleration.

The burning fuel mass seen burning outside the combustion chamber in any lift off video is clearly not part of the ship and, thus, cannot contribute to a mass from mass acceleration of the ship it didn't accelerate from.

If an explosion of liquid O and liquid H were possible, water vapor would be created in the permanently open combustion chamber. Water vapor, like all gases, would obey Boyle's law and immediately expand to fill the infinity of space.
Rockets working in the vacuum of space was first proposed by Prof Goddard of Clark College (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v71, N2, 1919). He was working for the military. The New York Times, accurately trashed him on January 13, 1920 (p12, col5) in a "Topic of the Times" editorial (the Rice University archive was removed in 2008). As the New York Times became more and more the official propagandist of repressive government, they retracted the editorial in 1969. Goddard's proposal was based only on solid propellants

Is up the opposite of down?

Another misapplication of free expansion. Free expansion applies to a CLOSED system. A rocket is not a closed system.

And the New York Times was wrong and ignorant.

That requires a context... proposition :-

(1) In a place where gravity exists, and our brains register the equilibrium fluid in our ears to perceive we are upright, then there is a perceived 'up and down'... which would be polar opposites

(2) In a weightless 'vacuum' atmosphere, where no such function can be perceived by the brain.. then there is no up or down.. there is simply a sense of 'suspended animation' so there is no perceived opposite of the other...

(3) Suspended in a mass of water... I think there is perceived up and down, though depending on what depth your at... fish always seem to 'swim upright'...

haha

There. Now you are well on your way to forgetting about this rocket silliness.

cheers for the negative feedback by the way...