[totallackey]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

[BRrollin]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

Oh I see. You think that momentum conservations requires an additional interaction. Where is that interaction then in the equations? It’s not there bro.

Do you want to modify the equations to describe what you are proposing? Be my guest.

Go on, propose your own equation for momentum conservations that requires a “plume containment.”

Or show us Joule’s equation for plume containment.

Actually, let’s make this easier for you: find any scientific article that has the words “plume containment.”

You just made that term up. You pulled it out of your fart plume sphincter.

[iCare]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Don't we all know the feeling. 

Rockets have and maintain momentum.
Rockets can work in space.

I looks like we (as in at least you and I) agree to that extend.
For all practical purposes (esp. the question if rockets could have taken us to the moon) we'd be done now.
In space, esp. when looking at rockets going into orbit around earth or as far as the moon, we cannot assume a (perfect) vacuum.
So the question, if rockets work in a vacuum, becomes somewhat philosophical (in the sense of being of fundamental import, but of no relevance to "real live").   

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.
Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surround pressure to contain a plume.
Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

This is where you keep going wrong.

The force (opposite to the force accelerating the rocket), is not the force acting from the plume towards the containment by atmosphere.
It is the force expelling (accelerating) the mass (gas/exhaust) from the rocket. Mass flow (exhaust) accelerated one way, rocket accelerates equally in the opposite direction.
Hence whatever happens to the plume after leaving the rocket/nozzle is of comparatively little relevance to the process. It will have a different shape and dissipate differently in different environments, but that's all "after the fact". When the question of vacuum or no vacuum becomes relevant, propulsion has already happened.

iC

[Logical Person]

Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

https://www.rt.com/usa/410360-moon-landing-new-conspiracy/

That picture was literally taken by the other astronaut. That’s perfectly plausible.

And I’m just going to say that it would be EASIER to just go to the moon than try to fake it. You do realize that they made an actual working rocket that launched before everybody’s eyes? We all saw it and we can’t deny that. Hundreds and hundreds of hours were put into making this rocket. If they were to fake it they would have to fake all of the blueprints and all of the documents they made for creating the rocket. It would literally just be logical to say “hey instead of faking all this let’s just go to the moon”

[somerled]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

Oh I see. You think that momentum conservations requires an additional interaction. Where is that interaction then in the equations? It’s not there bro.

Do you want to modify the equations to describe what you are proposing? Be my guest.

Go on, propose your own equation for momentum conservations that requires a “plume containment.”

Or show us Joule’s equation for plume containment.

Actually, let’s make this easier for you: find any scientific article that has the words “plume containment.”

You just made that term up. You pulled it out of your fart plume sphincter.

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .


 

[totallackey]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

Oh I see. You think that momentum conservations requires an additional interaction. Where is that interaction then in the equations? It’s not there bro.

Do you want to modify the equations to describe what you are proposing? Be my guest.

Go on, propose your own equation for momentum conservations that requires a “plume containment.”

Or show us Joule’s equation for plume containment.

Actually, let’s make this easier for you: find any scientific article that has the words “plume containment.”

You just made that term up. You pulled it out of your fart plume sphincter.

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

Thanks, but really...the usual stuff...

They ignore what their own eyes tells em...

"Oh yeah, I see the rocket doesn't work in a near vacuum environment! But trust me...when it gets to total vacuum, it'll work, cause....cause...reasons...like sound being isentropic!"

Quite laughable really...

Just indicates they have no clue...

[BRrollin]

So, I see the questions revolve again on something I have not claimed.

Rockets have and maintain momentum when moving.

Rockets can work in space.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Once the plume loses containment (i.e., freely expanding gas, which Joules tells us is correct) then sayonara propulsion.

Oh I see. You think that momentum conservations requires an additional interaction. Where is that interaction then in the equations? It’s not there bro.

Do you want to modify the equations to describe what you are proposing? Be my guest.

Go on, propose your own equation for momentum conservations that requires a “plume containment.”

Or show us Joule’s equation for plume containment.

Actually, let’s make this easier for you: find any scientific article that has the words “plume containment.”

You just made that term up. You pulled it out of your fart plume sphincter.

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is no law as conservation of momentum?

Just google “conservation of momentum.”

The conservation law holds in the absence of external forces. That is, if a system is isolated, then its momentum will be conserved. 

So if we take our system to be a rocket and it’s fuel. Floating out there in space, then it is indeed isolated and so the conservation law applies.

[JSS]

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is actually such a law and it's one of the three fundamental laws of conservation in physics. Momentum, energy, and angular momentum. I'll give you a link explaining it for you to look at if you are unfamiliar with it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

A question. If you are in a vacuum and you throw a ball away from you, do you think you will move backwards or stay put?

[somerled]

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .


Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is actually such a law and it's one of the three fundamental laws of conservation in physics. Momentum, energy, and angular momentum. I'll give you a link explaining it for you to look at if you are unfamiliar with it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

You link is piece about "Conservation of Momentum" , which is dealt with in Newton's 1st .

This theory (theories are not laws)

 https://www.brighthubengineering.com/thermodynamics/111344-understanding-the-conservation-of-momentum-principle/
 
is required by Nasa to enable its pretence that rockets can change velocity without application of a force .

It's silly wocket equation misses out altogether the need for a force to be applied , in direct contravention of the known laws of physics , by deriving a nonsense equation . Must be nonsense since you can't have any change in momentum until a force is applied.
 
Momentum is dealt with in fkn Newton's 1st law .

An object shall remain at rest or in constant motion blah blah blah etc ,

Newton's 2nd - until a force is applied.

Your question is a different scenario , but nothing will happen until a force is applied , will it?
- I'll have to apply a force.
I wont be able to throw the fkn ball by quoting a theoretical equation at it

[JSS]

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .


Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is actually such a law and it's one of the three fundamental laws of conservation in physics. Momentum, energy, and angular momentum. I'll give you a link explaining it for you to look at if you are unfamiliar with it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

You link is piece about "Conservation of Momentum" , which is dealt with in Newton's 1st .

This theory (theories are not laws)

 https://www.brighthubengineering.com/thermodynamics/111344-understanding-the-conservation-of-momentum-principle/
 
is required by Nasa to enable its pretence that rockets can change velocity without application of a force .

It's silly wocket equation misses out altogether the need for a force to be applied , in direct contravention of the known laws of physics , by deriving a nonsense equation . Must be nonsense since you can't have any change in momentum until a force is applied.
 
Momentum is dealt with in fkn Newton's 1st law .

An object shall remain at rest or in constant motion blah blah blah etc ,

Newton's 2nd - until a force is applied.

You should understand what 'theory' and 'law' means. Laws describe behavior, theories explain it. You seem to think one is superior to the other, but they are just different aspects of how science works. A theory is not worse than a law, they simply serve different purposes.

You said there is "no such law as conservation of momentum" which is clearly incorrect, there is such a law.

Your question is a different scenario , but nothing will happen until a force is applied , will it?
- I'll have to apply a force.
I wont be able to throw the fkn ball by quoting a theoretical equation at it

So you agree you will move backward? That's also how rockets work. Rockets throw lots of little balls in one direction, and then it moves the other direction. It's a very simple concept. Maybe imagine lots of little people throwing baseballs out to try and understand it?

Throwing a ball, is applying a force.

[BRrollin]

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .


Pure nasa fantasy that a rocket engine can work in a vacuum.

Admire your stamina totallackey , I doff my cap .

There is actually such a law and it's one of the three fundamental laws of conservation in physics. Momentum, energy, and angular momentum. I'll give you a link explaining it for you to look at if you are unfamiliar with it.

https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

You link is piece about "Conservation of Momentum" , which is dealt with in Newton's 1st .

This theory (theories are not laws)

 https://www.brighthubengineering.com/thermodynamics/111344-understanding-the-conservation-of-momentum-principle/
 
is required by Nasa to enable its pretence that rockets can change velocity without application of a force .

It's silly wocket equation misses out altogether the need for a force to be applied , in direct contravention of the known laws of physics , by deriving a nonsense equation . Must be nonsense since you can't have any change in momentum until a force is applied.
 
Momentum is dealt with in fkn Newton's 1st law .

An object shall remain at rest or in constant motion blah blah blah etc ,

Newton's 2nd - until a force is applied.

Your question is a different scenario , but nothing will happen until a force is applied , will it?
- I'll have to apply a force.
I wont be able to throw the fkn ball by quoting a theoretical equation at it

Actually, momentum is a consequence of Newton’s third law - not the first law.

F1=the force of the rocket on the fuel

F2=the force of the fuel on the rocket

F1=-F2
m1(dv1/dt)=-m2(dv2/dt)

So then m1v1+m2v2=constant

And the momentum of the system is conserved.

I think you are confusing external and internal forces. For a system defined as the rocket + fuel, that system is isolated, and so there are no eternal forces. But certainly there is a third law pair of internal forces that participate in rocket propulsion and depict momentum conservation.

[iCare]

Any, and all change in momentum requires application of force . You can't explain change in momentum in any other way. There has to be an initial force .

As far as I remember, there hasn't been any disagreement about that.
This is what happens when rockets change momentum in an atmosphere and it is the same when they do so in a vacuum.
Claiming that there is no force, however, is in conflict with accepted laws of physics.

• The increase of gas and its temperature within the combustion chamber creates pressure against the resistance of the nozzle. There is a force.
• Also mass (gas) is accelerated (expelled, not to be confused with free expansion). => There is a force.

Neither is dependent on the environment (esp. the presence of atmosphere).

There is the law of conservation of energy but no such law as conservation of momentum .

Regardless of the semantics (to avoid calling it sophistry) if it is a law, a theory, a principle or anything else:
If one mass is accelerated in one direction, another must be (equivalently) accelerated the opposite direction - as described by Newton's Laws (3rd).
If you want to disprove conservation of momentum, you need to disprove Newton.

Momentum is a vector quantity so conservation of momentum would require the total mass to travel in the same direction at all times with same velocity or else it wouldn't be conserved .

So where do you see a problem?
Newton's Third Law ("Action-Reaction") describes exactly that: two vectors "equal in magnitude and opposite in direction" (rocket goes one way, exhaust goes the opposite way) => their sum is 0 => momentum is conserved.
This does not preclude, that various parts of the total mass could travel in any direction at any speed as long as the total of all vectors remains constant.   

iC

[iCare]

"Oh yeah, I see the rocket doesn't work in a near vacuum environment! But trust me...when it gets to total vacuum, it'll work, cause....cause...reasons...like sound being isentropic!"
Quite laughable really...
Just indicates they have no clue...

The described isentropic flow through the nozzle applies to sound and has nothing to do with propulsion.

Why would isentropic flow through the nozzle have anything to do with sound? It is about thermodynamics not acoustics. The speed of sound is relevant, but not sound as such.
In contrast isentropic flow is relevant to work being done, so it is relevant to propulsion.

Isentropic ist not "cause....cause...reasons...", it is in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics (and is not about accoustics).
If "sound being isentropic!" is what you got from that source and the ensuing discussion, you have convincingly proven that is you, who hasn't a clue.

Rockets working in a vacuum really fits in nicely with accepted and proven physical laws.
Whereas I still haven't seen a plausible explanation, why/how the force propelling rockets in an atmosphere could suddenly disappear when the rocket is surrounded by a vacuum.
All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

iC

[JSS]

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

Just a guess, but I think people in general have a hard time imagining things outside their direct experience.

Things move because you touch them. You paddle a canoe and physically push yourself along against the water. You push a shopping cart and it moves. A car hits you and moves you. So it seems logical to them, rockets 'push' against the air.

The idea that you can move without shoving against something else fixed to a planet can seem strange and unusual if you never thought about it before. Laws of momentum can seem abstract and hard to grasp because you can't see, touch or feel them.

[AATW]

They ignore what their own eyes tells em...

Some time just after the Cretaceous period when this thread began, and in other threads, you were shown several videos showing rockets working in vacuums. Your response to every one was basically "no it didn't", despite what your own eyes told you.
You have misunderstood the physics and denied the evidence of your own eyes.

[iCare]

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

Just a guess, but I think people in general have a hard time imagining things outside their direct experience.

I'd say, that's a good guess and probably something everybody has experienced to some extend.
Looking at thermodynamics I can certainly confirm, that they don't always feel intuitive to me. 
But then, that's an important aspect of science - going beyond direct/subjective experience/perception and looking at how things really work beyond the obvious.
Taking that step, science clearly shows that (and why) rockets work in a vacuum. 

The idea that you can move without shoving against something else fixed to a planet can seem strange and unusual if you never thought about it before. Laws of momentum can seem abstract and hard to grasp because you can't see, touch or feel them.

Agreed, however, people (in this thread) arguing against the laws of physics, that make rockets work in any environment, claim they have extensively thought about it ... how does that fit in?
And even with the idea of needing "something to push against", doesn't it seems more probable to have a rocket "push against its own exhaust" than to expect thrust to just disappear?

iC 

[JSS]

The idea that you can move without shoving against something else fixed to a planet can seem strange and unusual if you never thought about it before. Laws of momentum can seem abstract and hard to grasp because you can't see, touch or feel them.

Agreed, however, people (in this thread) arguing against the laws of physics, that make rockets work in any environment, claim they have extensively thought about it ... how does that fit in?

I suppose just because you think about something a lot doesn't mean you automatically get it. I still don't 'get' the vast majority of what I was taught in college about Quantum Mechanics. I learned enough to pass but really, a lot of it still confused the heck out of me and just makes no sense. I understand some rocket science, but certainly don't 'get' a lot of it.

But I trust that rocket scientists DO get it. So if you have no trust in the rest of the world, everything suddenly becomes an unsolvable mystery.

Like my comment about throwing baseballs out the back of a rocket. That's a super huge simplification, but I can't throw rocket formulas around so that's the best I can do to explain it.

[yetitsflat]

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Here is an intuitive way to understand how a rocket can work in a vacuum :

The exploding gas within the rocket moves at high velocity in all directions. The gas moving in the same direction as the rocket pushes on the rocket, while the gas moving in the opposite direction (the gas being expelled) doesn't push on anything. The net result is that the exploding gas pushes the rocket forward.

It works that way within the atmosphere as well. It is a misconception to think that the expelled gas is pushing on the atmosphere (that push is negligible).

[yetitsflat]

There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were hoaxes, pretending that rockets can't work in vacuum distracts from the real evidence.

American Moon is the best documentary on the subject https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

[totallackey]

Isentropic ist not "cause....cause...reasons...", it is in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics (and is not about accoustics).
If "sound being isentropic!" is what you got from that source and the ensuing discussion, you have convincingly proven that is you, who hasn't a clue.

Yeah...okay...

Let's repost the claptrap source and see what it defines as being isentropic at the nozzle:

""Isentropic flows occur when the change in flow variables is small and gradual, such as the ideal flow through the nozzle shown above. The generation of sound waves is an isentropic process. A supersonic flow that is turned while the flow area increases is also isentropic. We call this an isentropic expansion because of the area increase."

Now, knowing that gas released to the confines of a vacuum does 0 work, and knowing the entirety of the nozzle (both the outside of the bell and the inside of the bell) are exposed to vacuum, neither of the conditions for "isentropic process, " are met.

Rockets working in a vacuum really fits in nicely with accepted and proven physical laws.

If they were, we would see the evidence in the videos.

Instead, what we see, is the exact opposite.

Whereas I still haven't seen a plausible explanation, why/how the force propelling rockets in an atmosphere could suddenly disappear when the rocket is surrounded by a vacuum.

Because release of gas into a vacuum results in the free expansion of that gas and not a defined plume on which the rocket can act.

All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?

iC

It disappears when gas is released into a vacuum.

W = F

F = m/a

Gas = m

Since we know that gas > 0, that must mean that acceleration must = 0, since F = 0 when gas is released to a vacuum.

Essentially what you guys are writing is that Joule's Law is wrong and that gas when released to a vacuum can do work.

That's just plain wrong.

And I ain't goin' for it.

Especially since the video evidence proves I am right.

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Because the method by which rockets propel themselves (thrust, provided by expelling gas from the nozzle at the rear) is fine and dandy as long is there is surrounding pressure to contain a plume.

Here is an intuitive way to understand how a rocket can work in a vacuum :

The exploding gas within the rocket moves at high velocity in all directions. The gas moving in the same direction as the rocket pushes on the rocket, while the gas moving in the opposite direction (the gas being expelled) doesn't push on anything. The net result is that the exploding gas pushes the rocket forward.

The gas isn't exploding inside the rocket.

Except in the case of some launches.

Just stop with ignorance.