Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2019, 03:50:15 PM »
Their budget has increased by 22% since 2014.
[...]
Sounds like you're describing inflation.
Well, that's a factor. But I took the GDP Growth figure from this list:
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093
And over the same period, if my maths is right, inflation is less than 13%. The budget went up 22% in that period.
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2019, 04:11:52 PM »
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
On a general trend, it absolutely is. Taking a few data points that don't fit the trend and claiming that they disprove the trend is not how you do data analysis.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2019, 06:01:24 PM »
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:


Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied  (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .

A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics . 

Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .

Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
 

The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke .  Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2019, 08:02:41 PM »
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:


Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied  (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .

A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics . 

Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .

Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
 

The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke .  Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .

Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:

"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2019, 08:23:40 PM »
In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2019, 08:34:29 PM »
In both videos you see that the rocket fuel will only ignite when in a container under pressure - they both have to be converted into bombs to ignite lol. As the guy says - it needs pressure , which is absent under vacuum is it not ?

I think you missed the point. The rocket could ignite in both tests yet had a hard time staying ignited until he put the little capsule around it in the second go. In a liquid fuel rocket in space the oxidizer (hence the name) provides the sustained oxygen inside the rocket chamber to keep the ignition going.

But the test isn't so much about ignition, it's about whether the rocket will thrust in a vacuum and in the second test, once burn was achieved, it did in fact thrust.

Bottom line, whether you believe the results of the experiment or not, if you're trying to use it to show that rockets don't thrust in a vacuum you would be showing the exact opposite.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2019, 09:56:08 PM »
Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .

The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out. 
       
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .

In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .

Rocket science without hocus pocus . Laws of physics as derived from experiment here on earth .


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2019, 12:15:56 AM »
Clearly , in both videos , rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer cannot ignite in a vacuum . The point is , that is the laws of physics in action .

Are you talking ignition or burn? Yes, it's difficult to ignite, but how the tester ignited it with a little bit of oxygen encasing it got it to ignite and then it burned freely in the vacuum. Once you get it going, it burns.

The ignition of the fuel has to be carried out in a pressurized container - a bomb . That is the point .The experiments are carried out in a small chamber , once the bomb explodes you have pressure in the sealed chamber which allows the fuel to burn and thrust occurs , which will increase as the internal pressure increases until the fuel burns out. 

I'm not really following. You're saying that no matter what these experiments demonstrate doesn't mean anything because the chamber is small?

       
Both videos show that rocket engines - which are not bombs - will not work in a near vacuum , even with oxidizer .

Actually they are bombs, just open on one end which allows the gasses created to escape causing thrust.

In the theoretic vacuum of space you still need pressure outside the rocket nozzle to produce thrust .

Why? Please explain.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2019, 06:27:36 AM »
The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer  , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
         Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.

A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .

The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .

         I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .
 
         I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see
because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .

Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion .

During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure  . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .

In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .

 

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2019, 07:52:44 AM »
The mincing of words has begun . There is no controlled ignition - this rocket engine fuel, complete with it's own oxidizer  , will not ignite in that low pressure environment . Now that fact stares you in the face when you watch these experiments unfold.
         Once the rocket engine ignition system is turned into a bomb - by sealing the container with glue under atmospheric pressure and placing this into the vacuum - we can explode this bomb , which pressurises the vacuum.

A bomb with "one end open" is not a bomb - it is a nozzle .

The term "controlled burn" is different to the term "explosion" .

So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?

         I have already directed you to Joules experiment concerning expansion of gas into a vacuum , the results of which show that no work is done in the process .These videos are repeats of those scientific experiments - substituting rocket fuel (which changes to gas when burnt ) for gas .

Actually I can't see where you've directed anyone to Joule and free expansion, etc, I searched, maybe missed it somehow. In any case, why don't you describe why the classic and trite usage of "free expansion does no work" is useful to this discussion and how that applies to rocket propulsion in a vacuum. 
 
I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines work in a vacuum . You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think scientists will not lie or deceive you .

I could easily switch this up for you too:

I am unable to open your eyes for you because you are conditioned to believe that rocket engines don't work in a vacuum. You see the principles of rocketry in front of you but cannot understand what you see because you think Flat Earth YouTube content generators will not lie or deceive you.

So spare us both the soliloquy as they cancel each other out.

Scientists knew this too at one time - the experiments of Joules led them to that conclusion.

Experiments of the likes of Joule and Newton led us to the conclusions we have today, Laws of Thermodynamics and of Motion do not contradict one another. They are bedrocks of physics and seem to work really, really well.

During the 60's I recall our physics teacher outlining the principles of physics applied to the three stage Saturn rocket . Five big nozzles to lift from the launch pad and accelerate quickly in the pressure of the lower atmosphere (stage 1) . These large area nozzles worked well but lost thrust exponentially as altitude increased , hence stage 2. Smaller area of these nozzles increased thrust - which is governed by nozzle area , mass flow and outside air pressure  . Stage 3 rocket gave final acceleration - smallest nozzle area .

In order to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease . Plain rocket science . All proven . Rockets don't work in a vacuum . As you see in the videos .

I'm not aware that 'to keep accelerating nozzle size has to decrease'. And I don't know what that would have to with whether rockets work in space or not. I do know that multi-stage rockets tend to be "stepped down" in size due to the reduction in payload mass achieved by doing so.

You could have skipped all of your psuedo-science/analysis above and just responded with, "Plain rocket science. All proven. Rockets don't work in a vacuum." That's basically the the total amount of what you said anyway.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2019, 07:54:36 AM »
It's certainly not a sign that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down"
On a general trend, it absolutely is. Taking a few data points that don't fit the trend and claiming that they disprove the trend is not how you do data analysis.
You said "is being rapidly scaled down". Implying a continuing trend. But that is not the current trend.
You'd need 4% inflation every year for a 22% increase in NASA spending to just be inflation, inflation has been lower than that every year.
Spending has increased in real terms over the last 5 years. I'm not saying that is evidence of rapid expansion of NASA, it isn't.
But neither is it indicating that NASA is being "rapidly scaled down", that implies an ongoing process of scaling down which isn't what the figures show no matter how you wriggle.
Have operations scaled down since the 60s? Of course, the space race provoked a huge spike in spending which clearly wasn't sustainable.
But since then although there has been some cut in spending there is no evidence that operations are being "rapidly scaled down".
If you do have evidence showing that then please present it.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2019, 08:15:21 AM »
 
[/quote]

So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?

The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

That is why the experiment then has to be changed to one of " oh look - a bomb will explode in a
vacuum " which is a totally different experiment . Simple science .

The rest of your post is waffle .

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2019, 09:03:07 AM »
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.

But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2019, 09:07:07 AM »
You said "is being rapidly scaled down". Implying a continuing trend. But that is not the current trend.
Once again, pay attention. What you're doing is isolating a small portion of a trend and pointing out that it doesn't match. You're correct on a point of fact, but your analysis of it defies standard data analysis practice.

You also insist on using the wrong unit. Ditch the US Dollar and use the percentage of the budget.

Over the past 20 years, this has halved. There is no statistically significant portion of time during which that trend was broken.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 09:09:13 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2019, 09:38:09 AM »
You also insist on using the wrong unit. Ditch the US Dollar and use the percentage of the budget.
OK.



(source https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf )

Annoyingly this graph isn't up to date but I found this:

For all it does, NASA receives just 0.4% of the $4.7 trillion FY 2020 federal budget.
(source https://www.thebalance.com/nasa-budget-current-funding-and-history-3306321)

Quote
Over the past 20 years, this has halved. There is no statistically significant portion of time during which that trend was broken.

After the real peak of spending in the 60s space race it went down rapidly from nearly 4.5% in 66-67 to 1% in about '75.
It went down from then till about '86 to 0.75% then back up to 1% in around '91.
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
The only period when you could claim that NASA's operation was being "rapidly scaled down" is after the space race and it's obvious why that was, the US won, after the first couple of missions public interest waned, the last few missions were cancelled which is why there's a sodding great unused Saturn V rocket in the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida.

There is a trend certainly and there was a big cut in funding in the wake of the financial crisis but I don't think you can sensibly claim that NASA is being "rapidly" scaled down.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2019, 09:50:34 AM »
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
It's about as fast as you can go without outright firing half of your staff on the spot, which probably wouldn't work so well. It's as rapid as rapid gets.

There is a trend certainly and there was a big cut in funding in the wake of the financial crisis
Well, at least we progressed from "but there's no trend though, is there?" so that's something. Whether or not you agree with my use of the word "rapid", the inconvenient truth remains obvious.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2019, 10:47:41 AM »
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.

But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?
You saw the rocket fail in vacuum conditions in both videos - practicle physics in action .
You saw the experiment re-designed . The you saw a different experiment .
You saw a bomb explode at which point the vacuum no longer exists . Rocket fuel then burns increasing the pressure in the chamber and so thrust increases with pressure . Practicle physics in action but in a pressurised chamber .

See my above posts  above regarding the reactive force of thrust which is used to accelerate rockets . Everything is explained - even the use of Newton's laws - no 3rd law without the 2nd . I understand your struggle with basic physic principles . It's evident that these are not taught correctly now - dumbing down of the population by selective teachings leading to inability to question what they are told they "know".

Someone posted earlier  that it was amazing that the average of the nasa mob was 24 yrs. I always wondered how they pulled off the deception . When I saw that comment I realised how .





Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2019, 12:46:45 PM »
You can't change physical laws to enable rocket engines to produce thrust in a vacuum .

Just to add to my previous post about Newton's Third Law
Here's a video showing this works:


Things don't run on Newton's third law . The third law is a natural consequence of a force being applied  (Newton's 2nd law ) to accelerate a body in uniform motion , or stationary ( Newton's 1st law ) . Can't put it any simpler than that .

A rocket engine uses thrust to accelerate . Thrust is a reactive force - when a mass flow meets resistance then thrust is generated perpendicular to the direction of the mass flow i.e. back up the nozzle in the rocket engine case , driving the rocket forward . Simple physics . 

Mass flow into a vacuum must meet a resistance in order to generate thrust . It cannot thrust against itself. See joules law for expansion of gas into a vacuum .

Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
 

The principle of geostationary satellites is the invention of science fiction writer A.C. Clarke .  Had to be since no physicist would have come up with that . Same as rockets in a vacuum - fairytale .

Apparently you didn't watch the whole video. Start at 4:30 and watch till the end. The experimenters final words on the subject after a successful test:

"...there you go rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little bit more in vacuum as they can in air because they're not pushing against the air they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that it did just fine..."
What difference did it make to watch it to the end?

Any test purported to take place in a vacuum here on earth is ridiculous on its face...

It's nowhere near what space is purported to be and it would not maintain initial tor once an ignition attempt is made or achieved due to expulsion of matter into the environment.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2019, 01:14:36 PM »
Since then yes, there is a downward trend but it's a change from 1% to 0.4% over a 28 year period is hardly "rapid".
It's about as fast as you can go without outright firing half of your staff on the spot, which probably wouldn't work so well. It's as rapid as rapid gets.
Halving your expenditure over a 28 years period is as rapid as rapid gets? ???
After the space race it went from 4.5% in 1966 to 1% in 1975.
That's more than quartering the budget in 9 years. Now THAT is a rapid scaling down and we all know why - the space race was over. The US won.
The public interest was waning, they could no longer justify that level of spending. That's why the later Apollo missions were scrapped.

It's "rapidly scaling down" I take issue with. It's clearly not true. There was a rapid scaling down after the 60's, sure.
Since then yes, the general trend has been downwards but in the last 5 years NASA spending has gone up in real terms.
Since 2010 the budget has been pretty consistently hovering around 0.5% of the budget (0.52% in 2010, 0.49% this year).

Quote
the inconvenient truth remains obvious.

And what do you think that is? What are you actually getting at here? I imagine NASA budgets could be affected by private enterprises by SpaceX - why let NASA launch your satellites if SpaceX can do it cheaper? But that's just a shifting of the money devoted to space exploration* elsewhere. (*using the word in the very loosest sense, I mean it to cover all space related stuff from manned missions to launching probes to fly past Pluto to launching satellites for GPS etc). Let's agree that budgets have, over time, gone down as a %age of the total budget. What do you think that's a smoking gun of?
NASA doesn't seem anywhere close to being quietly closed down, their budget this year is over $20bn, they have over 17,000 employees. They're not about to turn the lights off.
I'm not sure what your actual point is here.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 02:34:21 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2019, 02:32:43 PM »
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
???
That video literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.

In his initial test he says "The rocket did not ignite" and then says "This motor is not designed to work in a vacuum. The gunpowder can't sustain a burn."

Then when he modifies the rocket so there's some pressure for it to ignite in he shows it works and then says

"Rocket motors can produce just as much thrust in vacuum.
They are not pushing against the air, they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard
."

He concludes:

"Now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that, it did just fine.
And since I was able to figure it out, I'm sure the folks at NASA can do it."
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.