|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th April 2019, 06:10 AM | #1 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
Rockets cannot propel in the vacuum of space.
They ASSUMED incorrectly (on purpose), that there is an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Escaping gas needs something to push off of
Mathematical proof that the thrust equation is false 308053F1-9673-4230-ACBD-27616D0428EE.jpg |
17th April 2019, 06:37 AM | #2 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Well it's not that the rockets push against something, it's that the equal reaction pushes the rocket forward as it throws stuff backward.
ETA: Or, in other words, the rocket pushes against the stuff that it shoots out its back. |
17th April 2019, 06:49 AM | #3 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
17th April 2019, 06:56 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Why do you write the "NASA" rocket equation? You do realize that NASA didn't invent rocketry in a vacuum?
|
17th April 2019, 07:03 AM | #5 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
17th April 2019, 07:08 AM | #6 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Dang. I'm almost finished with a class on space mission planning over at edx.org. does this mean I'm wasting my time?
That's a trick question. I already know I'm wasting my time, in a practical sense, but it has been really cool learning about this stuff. Meanwhile, I applaud dasmiller for taking a look at the submission to point out a flaw. It took me a long time to understand how rockets moved. As a child, I, too, thought they pushed against the atmosphere, until someone pointed out that there was no atmosphere in space. Even after I could do the math related to conservation of momentum, I still knew that something had to push the spacecraft, and it took me a while to figure out what that was. |
17th April 2019, 07:29 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The equation describes momentum thrust and pressure thrust. For something like the Apollo lunar module DPS, pressure thrust accounts for about 40 percent of the overall thrust. This "proof" conflates the concepts of propellant mass flow rate, which is needed to understand how much momentum is in the exhaust, and the exhaust flow rate. It ignores the most exciting part about rocket engines, which is the massive acceleration imparted to the working fluid by the release of stored chemical energy as heat. The de Laval nozzle converts the results of that energy to velocity, which is where Ve comes from.
|
17th April 2019, 07:32 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Wow, this guy is foaming all over the forum trying to discredit NASA. This should be entertaining.
|
17th April 2019, 07:34 AM | #9 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
17th April 2019, 07:36 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Quote:
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
17th April 2019, 08:09 AM | #11 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Lets see, maybe a Russian named Tsiolkovsky in 1903?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolk...ocket_equation |
17th April 2019, 08:12 AM | #12 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Sort of. From the equations, I think he/she is saying that if you take a pipe, squirt fluid into it at one end, have that fluid come out of the other end at the same speed, then there won't be any thrust on the pipe.
Which is true, but it's not a good description of how rockets work. |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
17th April 2019, 08:13 AM | #13 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
17th April 2019, 08:29 AM | #14 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
17th April 2019, 08:34 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Nope, rockets send material in one direction, if they are in space they still send that material in one direction.
Newton's law for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then says that as the gases in the combustion vessel are moved in one direction the vessel is moved in the other. No atmosphere needed |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
17th April 2019, 08:41 AM | #16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It's relatively easy to break down.
Rocket thrust in a vacuum comes from two sources: the momentum of the exhaust and the static pressure of the exhaust. The first term in the equation looks at momentum, which has been written extensively about since Newton first discovered it. The momentum of the exhaust leaving in one direction matches the momentum of the rocket moving in the opposite direction, per Newton's third law of motion. The mass part of the momentum formula is the mass of the propellants, here described as the mass applied per unit time, because the exhaust leaves the system and must be replaced over time by new propellant. The key here is that the mass enters the thrust chamber as a liquid -- often a dense cryogenic liquid. But it leaves the engine as a gas of much greater volume and much less density than before. To be sure, the mass flow rate into the thrust chamber is the same as the mass flow rate out of the thrust chamber, but the exhaust mass is in a different form that must move much faster in order to sustain that flow rate. The propellant is first converted to gas in the top of the thrust chamber. It's sprayed together in such a way that it mixes thoroughly, and then the radiant heat from the reaction downstream vaporizes it. Those thoroughly mixed gases are then ignited, creating vast amounts of thermal energy in the working fluid. Every gas responds to an increase in thermal energy by trying to increase its volume and/or pressure. The urge to do so in a rocket engine is extremely powerful. A wonderful Victorian-era gadget called a de Laval nozzle -- a convergent-divergent nozzle -- lets the gas escape from the only remaining hole in the thrust chamber in a way that collimates the flow. All the gas molecules are going in the same direction, maximizing the momentum. Otherwise, pressurized gas escaping from a plain hole in a pressure vessel will expand in a cone-shaped pattern. The conversion of chemical energy thermodynamically to gas pressure, and from there to gas velocity, is what the poster's proof is missing. That's a more nuts-and-bolts explanation of where the momentum thrust comes from. Pressure thrust comes from the static pressure of the exhaust gas. The gas streaming in linear fashion out of the de Laval nozzle has momentum. But it's still a gas with measurable static pressure. It doesn't have zero density. As such, it pushes against the walls of the nozzle just like the contained air in a balloon pushes against the balloon walls, even though the balloon air isn't hot and isn't moving. It's ordinary gas pressure. The term for this effect is "adiabatic," and it's the same principle by which steam locomotives conserved water by opening the steam valve only a little bit at the beginning of the power stroke. If the static pressure of the exhaust is greater than the ambient into which it is exhausted, it will continue to expand in static fashion irrespective of its velocity. That urge to expand into a relatively unpressurized space is the ability to do what engineers call "pressure and volume work," in this case, to continue pushing in all directions. "All directions" in this case includes the direction of the rocket nozzle, which results in thrust. That's the second term of the equation -- the static pressure of the exhaust per unit area, minus the static pressure of the ambient (i.e., the pressure difference) times the area of the exit plane of the nozzle -- sort of like the area of the piston face in a steam cylinder. Ironically, the poster here thinks he has cleverly discarded momentum thrust. But he hasn't dealt with the notion that in a vacuum, the ambient pressure is zero so the pressure component of the rocket equation actually contributes more. The notion of "having something to push against" is actually the opposite of what makes rockets more efficient as they climb.
Quote:
NASA didn't invent rocketry. NASA isn't the only state-funded space program. NASA isn't even the biggest consumer of rocketry. NASA relies on private industry to supply its rockets, the same private industry that sells access to space to other private industries. Spacefaring is a multibillion-dollar industry. It doesn't give a rat's patootie about some ideological spat. |
17th April 2019, 08:47 AM | #17 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
17th April 2019, 08:54 AM | #18 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
17th April 2019, 08:55 AM | #19 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
The rocket doesn’t push the gas out. The gas moves out due to pressure gradient force. That’s the false ASSUMPTION made. No one here can demonstrate that there is an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force.
|
17th April 2019, 09:04 AM | #20 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
Hi, Gingervytes. Welcome to the forum.
Thank you for your clearly-written work. Jay has already addressed the errors in it, but the larger issue is that rockets are observed to work in a vacuum - we operate them all the time. That should have tipped you off that your work was incorrect. |
17th April 2019, 09:06 AM | #21 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:08 AM | #22 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
17th April 2019, 09:10 AM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
No, it is not assumed -- it is observed and measured. The de Laval nozzle dates back to Victorian times, used in steam turbine engines. The pressure "gradient" is converted to velocity, which is expressed in your equation as Ve.
Quote:
|
17th April 2019, 09:11 AM | #24 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:17 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Since he has expressed elsewhere on the forum a warning that belief in NASA is a religion and that NASA and space travel are a great political lie promulgated by the United States, I gather he will express himself further as one of those who delusionally claim that there is only NASA-related space flight and that the only observations of space flight come via NASA.
Quote:
Another reason to question one's own work is the ease with which it comes about. If it were that easy to refute the principle by which rocket engines work, why would one think himself to be the first person to have done it? Or the only person who knows about it? |
17th April 2019, 09:23 AM | #26 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
"Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."
- Editorial, The New York Times, July 17th 1969. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
17th April 2019, 09:23 AM | #27 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:23 AM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Thank you, but I'm more a fountain of available time and patience. These are not new concepts, or little-known concepts. Not to make light of your understandable confusion, but these are well-known topics. Sometimes it just takes someone who knows the right way to explain something to dispel that confusion. That person may not have vast knowledge of truth, but his skill lies in having sympathy for and experience with confusion. Having suffered myself as an early student, I recall the particular misconceptions that I had to overcome.
Newton's third law has stood upon a solid foundation for some three hundred years. It tells us how rockets must work, but more importantly it tells us about how so much of the observable universe works. If it suddenly didn't work in this case, that would be very strange indeed.
Quote:
|
17th April 2019, 09:33 AM | #29 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
Well, the SpaceX launch I watched last week from just outside the Vehicle Assembly Building was a commercial endeavor - they had a customer who paid them to put their vehicle into orbit. So NASA provided launch infrastructure, but had nothing to do with the rocketry in space. That’s just the latest example of decades of commercial space flight. Not to mention Soviet/Russian, European, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and other countries’ national and commercial space programs. The idea that the theory, let alone the practice, of rocketry somehow belongs to NASA is manifestly false.
On a more specific note, I’ve personally commanded a spacecraft to “fire” its thruster to move away from the Shuttle - a cold gas N2 rocket with a whopping few ounces of thrust. It worked just fine, as we observed the results directly - including tracking the vehicle with our own (not just NASA’s) S-band antenna. So, yes, I have direct personal experience that rockets work in a vacuum. |
17th April 2019, 09:33 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The velocity of gas exiting a de Laval nozzle for a given pressure is observed many times in the laboratory. The de Laval nozzle is not used only in rocketry.
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th April 2019, 09:38 AM | #31 | |||
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 8,185
|
I may as well be the one to post this. It usually comes up sooner or later.
|
|||
17th April 2019, 09:39 AM | #32 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:39 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
I have similar personal experience.
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th April 2019, 09:40 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:41 AM | #35 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:42 AM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:42 AM | #37 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:44 AM | #38 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 367
|
What is it with conspiracists and their obsession with video?
|
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis Join the Illuminati
|
|
17th April 2019, 09:44 AM | #39 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
|
People need to realize that gas expands freely into a vacuum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AubIFUsq7Ss |
17th April 2019, 09:46 AM | #40 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|