Jump to content
tatumsid

Rockets cannot propel in space.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Janet W said:

 

Thanks ilimmu.

 

But satellites don't operate inside Earth's atmosphere - they can't. The drag while in orbit would bring them down in minutes or hours. They have to be at least 100 miles up, the ISS is about 300 miles up. Geostationary satellites are about 23,200 miles up over the equator.

 

The only argument is: "Where does space start?". It's usually defined at 62 miles up, still well inside the ionosphere. Even low-earth orbit satellites need to be outside the ionosphere for various reasons, drag being one of them.

 

Therefore the only way to get satellites into orbit in space is on rockets. Even tatumsid knows this or he would have come up with an alternative theory - which he hasn't.

 

Janet 

I think this is what Tatumsid is really alluding to, there is never 'nothing' up there, there is always something to push off, even if its faint, its still not vacuum conditions.

All the rockets to take up the furthest satellites have been propelled within Earths atmosphere..including the alleged moon landings.

 

Surprise! Earth's Atmosphere Extends Far Beyond the Moon

Tiny wisps of Earth air stretch way out into deep space, far beyond the moon's orbit, a new study suggests.

Earth's "geocorona" — a tenuous cloud of hydrogen atoms — extends up to 390,000 miles (630,000 kilometers) into space, according to the new research. For perspective: The moon orbits Earth at an average distance of 239,000 miles (384,600 km).

"The moon flies through Earth's atmosphere," study lead author Igor Baliukin, of Russia's Space Research Institute, said in a statement. "We were not aware of it until we dusted off observations made over two decades ago by the SOHO spacecraft."

 

https://www.space.com/earth-atmosphere-extends-beyond-moon.html

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find, but nowhere near thick enough for rockets to "push against" when you read the bit about "...just 70 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches) at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km) on the day side and a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter at the moon's distance" now is it?

 

In any case, what about probes sent off well beyond these distances into the Solar System? Must be pushing against the few hydrogen molecules per cubic meter in outer space I guess...

Edited by Janet W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this argument has now got to 19 pages long.

 

Richard D Hall explains this far more concisely than I can, fast forward to 38:50 for the explanation of how rockets do work in space, but would are ultimately useless for travelling to somewhere like Mars.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

Does the gas not also hit the Materiel surrounding the small hole countering the effect of thrust from the perspective of rapid expansion in the chamber?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janet W said:

Nice find, but nowhere near thick enough for rockets to "push against" when you read the bit about "...just 70 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches) at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km) on the day side and a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter at the moon's distance" now is it?

 

In any case, what about probes sent off well beyond these distances into the Solar System? Must be pushing against the few hydrogen molecules per cubic meter in outer space I guess...

The reality is that the Earths atmosphere extends beyond the Moon, and its certainly not a vacuum within that known area.

The point being that tatumsid has been abused for quite a lot of pages now, and the information you were ridiculing him with was flawed and out dated.

The rockets have not worked in a vacuum from the information so far, only hypothesis. Tatumsid is asking for proof.

Im curious how you will provide proof for him too.

 

Probes, as far as I am aware use planetary pull to accelerate via orbits to generate high speeds and 'sling-shot' towards their destination and tiny thrusters to set approximate coarses  en route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ilimmu said:

The reality is that the Earths atmosphere extends beyond the Moon, and its certainly not a vacuum within that known area.

 

 

It is near as dammit a vacuum. I bellow with laughter at you "believing" the scientists who claim there are a few atoms of Earth's atmosphere that far out, but bizarrely every thing else that they say is called into question. Selective stupidity.

 

9 minutes ago, ilimmu said:

The point being that tatumsid has been abused for quite a lot of pages now, and the information you were ridiculing him with was flawed and out dated.

 

He is an imbecile or a troll. The idea that he relies on evidence assimilated from space travel measurements to determine that there is an atmosphere that far out is moronic.

 

12 minutes ago, ilimmu said:

The rockets have not worked in a vacuum from the information so far, only hypothesis. Tatumsid is asking for proof.

Im curious how you will provide proof for him too.

 

It's been given in copious amounts. Who are you? His idiot wing man?

 

13 minutes ago, ilimmu said:

Probes, as far as I am aware use planetary pull to accelerate via orbits to generate high speeds and 'sling-shot' towards their destination and tiny thrusters to set approximate coarses  en route.

 

Hmm, well the problem is the bit "as far as I am aware". The rockets achieve the orbital velocity by thrusting in vacuum or very close to it. They achieve escape velocity by thrusting into a speed and trajectory in whatever direction, but also in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

I can't believe this argument has now got to 19 pages long.

 

Richard D Hall explains this far more concisely than I can, fast forward to 38:50 for the explanation of how rockets do work in space, but would are ultimately useless for travelling to somewhere like Mars.

 

Rockets work fine anywhere. Interplanetary travel is just a matter of intersecting orbits by using the rocket then completing the journey using gravity. Rich Hall is a guff bucket who latches on to any and every piece of horseshit to make money from the terminally gullible. I actually took the time to watch this imbecile as he tells his audience of easily led about rockets and helicopters "pushing" on air. What a moron.

 

A helicopter rises by generating lift, not by pushing on the bloody air!! A rocket doesn't take anything to "push on", it ejects mass at high velocity and the reactive force is what moves it.

Edited by Rupert Ugo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Imagine this hypothetical scenario.

A huge vessel, the size of an airport hanger, cylindrical and made of huge section high grade carbon steel.

In one section a small flange with an opening of 75mm diameter, and on the bottom a hydraulic valve for extraction.

Now if a fire hose was clamped onto the flange so the hose aligns perfectly with the hole.

Then the vessel is pumped out of all air until it reaches a near perfect vacuum.

When the hose clamp is removed the hose will remain rigidly attached to the flange, held by the vacuum of the enormous vessel, with the hose devoid off all air, flat right up to the engine powered pump.

 

Now, when the pump is switched on and it generates pressure up to 400 psi..

Do you think the fire hose will push of the vacuous vessel?

If so, at what point will it push of the vessel?

 

As near as I can tell, that is the epitome of gibberish. Draw a diagram or explain it better, because that is bollocks.

 

Any force generated will create an equal opposite force - any hose held on will be subject to those forces and will act accordingly. On planet gibberish as well as Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

It is near as dammit a vacuum. I bellow with laughter at you "believing" the scientists who claim there are a few atoms of Earth's atmosphere that far out, but bizarrely every thing else that they say is called into question. Selective stupidity.

 

 

He is an imbecile or a troll. The idea that he relies on evidence assimilated from space travel measurements to determine that there is an atmosphere that far out is moronic.

 

 

It's been given in copious amounts. Who are you? His idiot wing man?

 

 

Hmm, well the problem is the bit "as far as I am aware". The rockets achieve the orbital velocity by thrusting in vacuum or very close to it. They achieve escape velocity by thrusting into a speed and trajectory in whatever direction, but also in a vacuum.

This post of yours stayed up..??

Are the bolded parts necessary to your message or would you say they are inflammatory remarks designed to create friction?

 

I used the 'scientists' because they are the only people you believe at face value.

The fact remains, that the moon is within the Earths atmosphere, contrary to your assertions in the old forum. But every day is a learning day if we subjugate our Ego's, Ugo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

As near as I can tell, that is the epitome of gibberish. Draw a diagram or explain it better, because that is bollocks.

 

Any force generated will create an equal opposite force - any hose held on will be subject to those forces and will act accordingly. On planet gibberish as well as Earth.

Draw a diagram?

ha ha.. I'll leave it for viewers capable of comprehending the question without drawings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Draw a diagram?

ha ha.. I'll leave it for viewers capable of comprehending the question without drawings..

 

Watch as they all respond. Tumbleweed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ilimmu said:

This post of yours stayed up..??

Are the bolded parts necessary to your message or would you say they are inflammatory remarks designed to create friction?

 

I used the 'scientists' because they are the only people you believe at face value.

The fact remains, that the moon is within the Earths atmosphere, contrary to your assertions in the old forum. But every day is a learning day if we subjugate our Ego's, Ugo

 

The bolded parts are hardly cause for you to be all upset now are they!? Only one is an inferred insult...the rest aimed at the content.

 

Are you just being deliberately and wilfully ignorant about the Earth's atmosphere? The readings are equivalent to one grain of sand in an ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

The bolded parts are hardly cause for you to be all upset now are they!? Only one is an inferred insult...the rest aimed at the content.

 

Are you just being deliberately and wilfully ignorant about the Earth's atmosphere? The readings are equivalent to one grain of sand in an ocean.

Rockets still don’t work in space 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tatumsid said:

Rockets still don’t work in space 

 

Yes they do! So there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't

Yes they can

No they can't

Yes they can

No they can't

Yes they can

No they can't

I would like to end this thread with a logical statement befitting this debate

Yes they can so NUNNY NUNNY FUCKING NAH NAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Watch as they all respond. Tumbleweed.

How can a forum viewer respond unless they join and become posters?

I never said posters.. *tumbleweed rolls back*

( it was in reference to Janets psychology students actively monitoring this forum, whilst lecturers pontificate about the inner workings of the 'conspiracy mindset' :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

The bolded parts are hardly cause for you to be all upset now are they!? Only one is an inferred insult...the rest aimed at the content.

 

Are you just being deliberately and wilfully ignorant about the Earth's atmosphere? The readings are equivalent to one grain of sand in an ocean.

That hardly constitutes an atmosphere now does Rup'?

The clue is in the title, it does exactly what it says on the tin..

Perhaps you could contact the 'scientific community' and rally them into relabelling it to something more to your liking? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Janet W said:

 

Yes they do! So there.

 

Do your psychology students really monitor this forum?

 

That's hilarious, if true.

 

Let me know anytime you want me to a start a thread to really freak them out and fry their tiny little peanut brains. 👍

 

How about 'Psychology is Horseshit' for starters?

Edited by size of light
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilimmu said:

That hardly constitutes an atmosphere now does Rup'?

The clue is in the title, it does exactly what it says on the tin..

Perhaps you could contact the 'scientific community' and rally them into relabelling it to something more to your liking? 

 

 

I don't need to....because unlike you I have total undetstanding of how it was formulated. The Moon is obviously still within the Earth gravity well....atmosphere previously discarded is following Earth orbit at that distance. It is miniscule and the whole bloody point(remember that!?) was that even 60 miles up there is essentially a full vacuum...nothing to "push off". On the Moon barely registering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

I don't need to....because unlike you I have total undetstanding of how it was formulated. The Moon is obviously still within the Earth gravity well....atmosphere previously discarded is following Earth orbit at that distance. It is miniscule and the whole bloody point(remember that!?) was that even 60 miles up there is essentially a full vacuum...nothing to "push off". On the Moon barely registering.

Can you prove its NOT a thin atmosphere up there Rup'?

 

Discarded atmosphere? Will we one day run out of atmosphere then?

( can you prove the earth is not attracting these compounds rather than discarding them?)

 

when you said this earlier:-

"Are you just being deliberately and wilfully ignorant about the Earth's atmosphere? The readings are equivalent to one grain of sand in an ocean."

But what constitutes the 'ocean' you describe in space in which the single hydrogen atoms are like a grain of sand within?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, size of light said:

 

Do your psychology students really monitor this forum?

 

That's hilarious, if true.

 

Let me know anytime you want me to a start a thread to really freak them out and fry their tiny little peanut brains. 👍

 

How about 'Psychology is Horseshit' for starters?

 

1) They are not "my psychology students".

2) It doesn't take a genius the realise these sorts of forums are a good way to check/track the development of conspiracies and how they link into human psychology.

3) This is confirmed if you simply research "psychology", "conspiracies", "forums", "social media". In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of the trolls on these forums are in fact students just trying out their own experiments to see what gets people going, where it spreads to (and how fast), and what just withers away.

4) If you want to start a peanut-brain frying thread for them (and surely we have enough on here already?) go ahead, although since you've now given them a heads-up it will probably be pointless.

 

Now - back on topic regarding the rediculos premise that rockets push on the atmosphere - just like jet planes... don't!

 

Perhaps this very thread is one of those psychology student experiments...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 1:37 PM, tatumsid said:

Sorry but throwing an object is not the same as gas movement due to pressure gradient force.

 

No, but it is a prime demonstration of Newton's Third Law of Motion, upon which the principle of rocket thrust is based.

 

Pressure gradient force (PGF) has NOTHING to do with the theory behind the propulsion of rockets in space.

 

You introduced the idea of PGF into this thread as part of your flawed logic to support your equally flawed assertion that "rockets cannot propel in space".

 

On 6/28/2019 at 1:37 PM, tatumsid said:

The rockets doesn’t throw the gas out

 

Except it practically does, hence why rockets DO propel in space. Again, this is Newton's Third Law of Motion in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Can you prove its NOT a thin atmosphere up there Rup'?

 

Define "prove". I can offer research from the people you quoted. Show hundreds of far side lunar pictures, Earth pictures, other planets etc. , scientific readings from numerous space probes. Enough to fill a thousand bibles. That would prove it to a rationale person, but not to a moron. The question is, would that suffice for you?

 

19 hours ago, ilimmu said:

Discarded atmosphere? Will we one day run out of atmosphere then?

( can you prove the earth is not attracting these compounds rather than discarding them?)

 

No, photosynthesis replaces oxygen lost to space. There is no oxygen in space to attract.

 

What "compounds" do you mean? Or was that a "sciencey" word you thought you could use.

 

19 hours ago, ilimmu said:

when you said this earlier:-

"Are you just being deliberately and wilfully ignorant about the Earth's atmosphere? The readings are equivalent to one grain of sand in an ocean."

But what constitutes the 'ocean' you describe in space in which the single hydrogen atoms are like a grain of sand within?

 

Great question, answered by the very people who postulate the atmosphere extends out to the Moon theory.

 

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond

 

"The denser dayside region of hydrogen is still rather sparse, with just 70 atoms per cubic centimeter at 60 000 kilometers above Earth’s surface, and about 0.2 atoms at the Moon’s distance. "

 

Quick comparison

There are roughly 25,300,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in one cubic centimetre at sea level on Earth. There are 0.2 atoms in one cubic centimetre on the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 2:06 PM, Janet W said:

 

Thanks ilimmu.

 

But satellites don't operate inside Earth's atmosphere - they can't. The drag while in orbit would bring them down in minutes or hours. They have to be at least 100 miles up, the ISS is about 300 miles up. Geostationary satellites are about 23,200 miles up over the equator.

 

The only argument is: "Where does space start?". It's usually defined at 62 miles up, still well inside the ionosphere. Even low-earth orbit satellites need to be outside the ionosphere for various reasons, drag being one of them.

 

Therefore the only way to get satellites into orbit in space is on rockets. Even tatumsid knows this or he would have come up with an alternative theory - which he hasn't.

 

Janet

Or there are not actual satellites in orbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tatumsid said:

Or there are not actual satellites in orbit

 

Even the dumbest of morons can see these satellites as they orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×