NASA’s biggest problem

Be the 1st to vote.

Simon has a way of making things clear to me, and this post is no different. Love the diagram.

Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum • Cluesforum.info

PROPULSION REALITY CHECK

Perhaps the most common question inquiring minds have about space travel is: “how can rockets function in the vacuum of space – or in very thin air pressure”? To this question, NASA (and its believers) unfailingly respond roughly like this: “that’s because rocket thrust is not achieved by pushing against air. Air has little or no influence on rocket propulsion. What makes a rocket move is the rocket fuel pushing onto itself. Have you ever heard of Newton’s 2nd & 3d laws of motion?” Well, the claim that “air density has NO influence on rocket propulsion” has to be the silliest of all NASA lies.

via Why Rocketry Doesn’t Work in the Vacuum • Cluesforum.info….

3 thoughts on “NASA’s biggest problem

  1. sew

    There are many hoaxes, or, in various forms; fabricated events. However, be aware that Simon Shak is a disinformation agent. He is one of many and ‘they’ have one for every taste. One of their purposes is to lead people astray (at ‘the end of the day’). Another purpose of the disinformation agents is … to ‘come across as crazy’ (think Alex Jones for archetype of this) and have normal people dismiss it all as totally crazy and make sure they will ‘forever’ look the other way. It also splits the people into two halfs; those of us who see that there are in fact some ‘amazing’, huge and very difficult to comprehend hoaxes truly going on, and the others who don’t want to, or who cannot see and cannot comprehend that there really are some huge lies being spread to us (in order to manipulate consciousness and society. Think ‘problem -> reaction -> solution’). Anyway, this fuel/air resistance discussion regarding space travel is an example where you can see that Simon Shak is a liar and leads people astray. And he lies deliberatly (and he did it with 9/11 too, although it is true that there were no airplanes on 9/11, but Simon Shak still lies and leads people astray. And not all footage from 9/11 was cgi btw. But ‘they’ don’t want people to look at some of it, for then people would start to become aware and wake up from the all persuasive matrix of lies that surounds us). Anyway2, the one who replied above me is correct. It is the momentum that is conserved, and they use ‘heavy fuel’ as the counter weight. Imagine an empty PET-bottle. Pump air into it until high preassure, then release it. It will perhaps fly, but not very much. Now fill the bottle with some water, and then with high-pressure air again. Now release it, and it will fly very far. In both examples, the momentum is conserved, but the water is much heavier ‘fuel’ than air, so then ‘the rocket’ gets much higher speed, to counterbalance the more heavy water being ejected in the opposite direction – since the total momentum must always be conserved. (btw there are science toys for kids, with these ‘water rockets’ whete ‘you’ can see this with your own eyes. Anyway3, what is important for space travel (at least the old fassioned way) is to use a heavy ‘fuel’ being ejected the opposite direction. The rocket will then move forward in order for the total momentum to still be conserved. It does not need air resistance for this. In fact it will ‘fly’ even better without airresistance. The latter would only slow it down, and eventually bring it to a stop. Be aware that Simon Shak is a disinformation agent of the worst kind (because he deceives good hearted people) and at the end of the day, he leads them astray and making sure to keep ‘them’ forever stuck in the matrix (one lie, replaced by another lie, is still living in a world of lies, and totally surounded by it). Anyway4, to abirato, keep up the good work – but be careful. There are many disinformation agents out there. Always do your own thinking and ask your own questions along the way. Also important to listen to what different people have to say and share. I did not read all of the reply above (or perhaps it will be below?) but anyway, I too can confirm that it is the total momentum that is conserved. It is related to the law of conservation of energy, and the total momentum being conserved applies also in vaccuum. Anyway5, so, in order to learn more, it is important to als listen to other people, but, in order not to be deceived (because some people are also not being honest) we must always ask our own questions along the way. Kind regards from Staffan

  2. larry

    I have been considering joining CF to respond to this thread. The claim that the “free expansion of gas into a vacuum” proves the impossibility of rocket thrust in space is bogus. This model would be valid if the rocket engine was enclosed by a box which is attached to the ass end of the rocket. Obviously wouldn’t work.
    In fact, a rocket would work better in no atmosphere. Imagine yourself on roller skates firing a shot gun. What would happen? Everyone would guess (I believe) that you would move in a direction opposite to the shot gun slug flying away. It’s hard to imagine how air pressure or resistance acting on the slug would have any effect on you. What’s happening is that momentum is conserved. Momentum is mass times velocity. When you and the slug were at rest, lets call the total momentum for you and slug both zero. (m1 x v1) + (m2 x v1) = 0 . After the shot gun is fired, the momentum for the slug is m1 x v2, where v2 is the new speed of the slug. For the total momentum of the system to be the same, m2 x v3 = – (m1 x v2), or v3 = – (m1 x v2) / m2, where v3 is the new velocity for the shooter. If you were falling in space, with no atmosphere, v2, the speed of the slug would be greater with no air resistance impeding it, so v3 would also be greater in the opposite direction.
    BTW, I don’t believe that there is anything man made functioning in space. As alluded to on CF, the radiation problems are immense. Not to mention that the speed required to stay in orbit is many times greater than the fastest speeding bullet, so hitting a spec of an asteroid, which might be coming from an opposing direction at a comparable speed would be highly problematic for the mylar protection. Another problem I haven’t seen mentioned is that if the atoms that are extant within low earth orbit range are ionized, what would that do to the mylar. Or perhaps the radiation would cause the protective mylar to itself become ionized and then simply dustify into atoms, like the WTC.
    I like Simon’s perpetual motion machine. But it wouldn’t work.
    Conservation of energy is the “reason”, but I’ll spare you the details.

Leave a Reply