Rockets can propel objects into low-Earth orbit. However, everything else related to rocket propelled space travel is fake. The vacuum of space is an insurmountable obstacle to rocket travel.
The vacuum of space will "vacuum" out the rocket exhaust gases as quickly as they're produced. Rocket exhaust cannot accumulate pressure; which is necessary to propel the rocket and it's cargo.
Rocket engines require atmospheric back-pressure to apply the equal-and-opposite force against the rocket.
It's analogous to the difference between firing ammunition in a firearm vs. striking the primer of an unchambered cartridge; except the shell casing of an unchambered cartridge will still build up (some) pressure and eject the casing off of the bullet.
Consider an experiment of an ammo cartridge suspended without movement in a zero-G vacuum in space. An observer could use a laser to heat and ignite the primer and gun powder; upon ignition the less massive shell casing would be (somewhat) rapidly ejected away from the much heavier bullet; with equal-and opposite-force.
This is the fundamental obstacle to rocket space travel. This obstacle cannot be overcome by any rocket technology. Rocket efficiency in an infinite vacuum is always near-zero. This explains the lack of interest in aero spikes, which appears to be an obvious opportunity for rocket tech improvement; until one understands the actual reality of the obstacle.
Rockets can reliably launch objects into near earth orbit, but everything else the public is shown is a fake.
"Rocket Science Proves Rockets Do Not Go Into 'Space'" https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=XMYBHXWR2W5M
This video analyzes public footage of publicly recorded rocket launches, and The same conclusion is reached based upon the same physical principles: observable differences in rocket efficiency as the rocket travels into higher altitudes; which explains the need for second-stage rocket engines. Because, the first stage rocket design maximizes efficiency at 1 atm, and loses efficiency at lower pressure; as a result of the reduction in air pressure at increasingly higher altitudes.
When you shoot a gun and feel recoil is that from the bullet interacting with the atmosphere? Let's say you shoot a larger bullet at lower velocity, usually you will feel more recoil, by a lot. .50 SWE is going to have much more recoil than a fast moving .22 moving much faster. Now you could say that they have different cross sections. Then what about the difference between a magnum slug and non-magnum in 12 gauge? The magnum will end up traveling slower on average and therefore will be interacting with the atmosphere less violently. Pushing against the atmosphere as you put it. Yet you feel more recoil.
The air pressure at the top of Everest is 0.3533 bar. Do you think you will feel half the recoil with have as much air to push against?
The differences you're identifying are difference in bullet mass, and the mass of gun powder in a cartridge; and recoil is also a function of the mass of the gun, and the barrel length as the bullet accelerates the length of the barrel, as a function of trapped pressure.
A firearm is designed to accelerate bullets.
W e could consider bullet velocity, but we can also consider recoil as they're directly related.
Let's consider the .50 SWE in different conditions where the variable is the length of the gun barrel.
Well pretend the barrel is 1000mm for simplification (3.3").
The 1000mm barrel would produce 100 units of recoil (on average).
Shorten the barrel by half to 500mm, will reduce the recoil, but not by 50%.
Shortening the barrel to 10% (100mm) will begin to significantly reduce the recoil, right?
Now consider 1.0% barrel length (10mm or ~0.39"). What would you expect the recoil to be if the barrel was shortened to 1%?
The recoil would become trivial.
Take it one step further to 0% barrel, where the mass of firearm is still connected to the firearm (analogous to the rocket with it's payload and fuel), but there's no gun barrel to allow pressure to accumulate against the bullet, so the bullet does not accelerate along the equal and opposite direction, which produces negligible recoil.
A rocket in a vacuum is like a gun without a barrel.
So regarding the first video: I don't understand the relevance. They launch rockets on the ground and they accelerate enough to exit the Earth. There is no further acceleration after leaving the atmosphere, neither is it necessary because there is no friction to slow it down over there, that's how the vacuum actually helps. Bodies simply maintain a constant speed until something stops them in outer space or they get near a body that pulls them in. Why would that not be possible?
"There is no further acceleration after leaving the atmosphere, neither is it necessary because there is no friction to slow it down over there, that's how the vacuum actually helps. Bodies simply maintain a constant speed until something stops them in outer space or they get near a body that pulls them in. Why would that not be possible?"
Because gravity continues to apply force in the direction of the Earth's center of mass to the rocket far beyond the atmosphere.
The Earth's diameter is roughly 7800 miles; or radius of 3900 miles. The atmosphere is a max thickness of 100 miles.
Upon exiting the Earth's atmosphere; the rocket has increased it's distance from the Earth's center of mass by only an additional 100 miles, so adding that distance to the Earth's radius of 3900, is a total distance of 4000 miles vs. 3900, or about a 2.6% increase in total distance.
9.81 newtons/kg are constantly applied to objects at the Earth's 3900 mile radial surface.
Gravity has an inverse square relationship with the distance between objects center of mass, but a 2.5% increase is trivial. The rocket has to travel another 3800 miles to reduce the effect of gravity to 1/4 G, as the force of gravity is an inverse square relationship with distance est.
g = 1/((d1-d2)^2)
Any rocket exiting the atmosphere will have zero rocket efficiency, but will continue to be pulled back to earth.
IIRC escape velocity from the Earth's surface, and 11.2 km/sec which is orders of magnitude faster than a rocket, which is flying horizontally away over the ocean (directly away from the launch site, because it's not actually flying directly up and into space.
They travel eastward to make use of Earth's rotational energy check out this video. Checking the launch acceleration of rockets in practice takes more time.
So this page implies that the slingshot is what allows rockets to leave Earth.
Using "gravity assist", a concept developed in the late 1960's, a visit to all the planets is now possible.
Admittedly it then goes on to talk about fly-bies of other planets but this is the best I can find, the web is utter shit. But it makes sense that this approach works when launching from Earth as well, you even pointed out they fly horizontally, this is why.
@bot. If a team of 6 astronauts ate nothing but slim jims for the duration of their flight to Mars, and all waste was collected, by the time they get to Mars how many Mole of nitrates would they have on arrival?
Huh. You’re right. Only 3% nitrogen. I wonder if you can still pull it from the atmosphere with electricity at that level. I’m not a chemist. But if we built some nuclear reactors we’d have plenty of electricity.
To be this is a further argument to bring humans last. I think we should attempt to bring whatever life will take the easiest first. Maybe it will need some support like humans would. But it will be less complex supporting something else.
You've really made me realize that the moon is about as hospitable as Mars is, and is closer. It also has He3. If we ever crack fusion that could be useful.
Hi. I feel like we haven't met. Welcome. How do we solve the problem of electronics surviving the surface? The longest we've gotten anything to last there is about 2 hours.
Mars is hostile to life.
What's the point?
Exploration.
First explore with robots. With supply stations in a Lagrange orbit and on the Moon. Master that first by building sustainable habitats - most likely in volcano tubes. Knowing how fragile housing is on Earth I am skeptical. Think of leaky basements, always replacing roofing, etc.
Then try Mars, just to try.
But colonizing is absurd.
Log in
You think we have a rover on Mars? I bet you think we went to the moon as well.
Is all of it fake? The moon landings clearly were, but what stops us from landing vehicles on the moon or other planets?
Rockets can propel objects into low-Earth orbit. However, everything else related to rocket propelled space travel is fake. The vacuum of space is an insurmountable obstacle to rocket travel.
The vacuum of space will "vacuum" out the rocket exhaust gases as quickly as they're produced. Rocket exhaust cannot accumulate pressure; which is necessary to propel the rocket and it's cargo.
Rocket engines require atmospheric back-pressure to apply the equal-and-opposite force against the rocket.
It's analogous to the difference between firing ammunition in a firearm vs. striking the primer of an unchambered cartridge; except the shell casing of an unchambered cartridge will still build up (some) pressure and eject the casing off of the bullet.
Consider an experiment of an ammo cartridge suspended without movement in a zero-G vacuum in space. An observer could use a laser to heat and ignite the primer and gun powder; upon ignition the less massive shell casing would be (somewhat) rapidly ejected away from the much heavier bullet; with equal-and opposite-force.
This is the fundamental obstacle to rocket space travel. This obstacle cannot be overcome by any rocket technology. Rocket efficiency in an infinite vacuum is always near-zero. This explains the lack of interest in aero spikes, which appears to be an obvious opportunity for rocket tech improvement; until one understands the actual reality of the obstacle.
Rockets can reliably launch objects into near earth orbit, but everything else the public is shown is a fake.
Here's a cleverly designed experiment you can test for yourself: "Rockets can't work in the vacuum of space science experiment" https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=8S6M6S29YG5Y
"Rocket Science Proves Rockets Do Not Go Into 'Space'"
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=XMYBHXWR2W5M
This video analyzes public footage of publicly recorded rocket launches, and The same conclusion is reached based upon the same physical principles: observable differences in rocket efficiency as the rocket travels into higher altitudes; which explains the need for second-stage rocket engines. Because, the first stage rocket design maximizes efficiency at 1 atm, and loses efficiency at lower pressure; as a result of the reduction in air pressure at increasingly higher altitudes.
Excluding low-Earth orbit; it's all bullshit.
This is hilarious.
When you shoot a gun and feel recoil is that from the bullet interacting with the atmosphere? Let's say you shoot a larger bullet at lower velocity, usually you will feel more recoil, by a lot. .50 SWE is going to have much more recoil than a fast moving .22 moving much faster. Now you could say that they have different cross sections. Then what about the difference between a magnum slug and non-magnum in 12 gauge? The magnum will end up traveling slower on average and therefore will be interacting with the atmosphere less violently. Pushing against the atmosphere as you put it. Yet you feel more recoil.
The air pressure at the top of Everest is 0.3533 bar. Do you think you will feel half the recoil with have as much air to push against?
Hey. You spotted his comment within 16 min even though the thread is 3 days old. Is this the bump mechanism at work?
Yes.
See it is good.
Yeah p nice.
"Hey. You spotted his comment within 16 min even though the thread is 3 days old. Is this the bump mechanism at work?"
I'm like an owl.
I can see messages during the day, if I go to the website at the right time, and also it takes some time to type messages.
Just like an owl.
It's an analogy.
The differences you're identifying are difference in bullet mass, and the mass of gun powder in a cartridge; and recoil is also a function of the mass of the gun, and the barrel length as the bullet accelerates the length of the barrel, as a function of trapped pressure.
A firearm is designed to accelerate bullets.
W e could consider bullet velocity, but we can also consider recoil as they're directly related.
Let's consider the .50 SWE in different conditions where the variable is the length of the gun barrel.
Well pretend the barrel is 1000mm for simplification (3.3").
The 1000mm barrel would produce 100 units of recoil (on average).
Shorten the barrel by half to 500mm, will reduce the recoil, but not by 50%.
Shortening the barrel to 10% (100mm) will begin to significantly reduce the recoil, right?
Now consider 1.0% barrel length (10mm or ~0.39"). What would you expect the recoil to be if the barrel was shortened to 1%?
The recoil would become trivial.
Take it one step further to 0% barrel, where the mass of firearm is still connected to the firearm (analogous to the rocket with it's payload and fuel), but there's no gun barrel to allow pressure to accumulate against the bullet, so the bullet does not accelerate along the equal and opposite direction, which produces negligible recoil.
A rocket in a vacuum is like a gun without a barrel.
So regarding the first video: I don't understand the relevance. They launch rockets on the ground and they accelerate enough to exit the Earth. There is no further acceleration after leaving the atmosphere, neither is it necessary because there is no friction to slow it down over there, that's how the vacuum actually helps. Bodies simply maintain a constant speed until something stops them in outer space or they get near a body that pulls them in. Why would that not be possible?
"There is no further acceleration after leaving the atmosphere, neither is it necessary because there is no friction to slow it down over there, that's how the vacuum actually helps. Bodies simply maintain a constant speed until something stops them in outer space or they get near a body that pulls them in. Why would that not be possible?"
Because gravity continues to apply force in the direction of the Earth's center of mass to the rocket far beyond the atmosphere.
The Earth's diameter is roughly 7800 miles; or radius of 3900 miles. The atmosphere is a max thickness of 100 miles.
Upon exiting the Earth's atmosphere; the rocket has increased it's distance from the Earth's center of mass by only an additional 100 miles, so adding that distance to the Earth's radius of 3900, is a total distance of 4000 miles vs. 3900, or about a 2.6% increase in total distance.
9.81 newtons/kg are constantly applied to objects at the Earth's 3900 mile radial surface.
Gravity has an inverse square relationship with the distance between objects center of mass, but a 2.5% increase is trivial. The rocket has to travel another 3800 miles to reduce the effect of gravity to 1/4 G, as the force of gravity is an inverse square relationship with distance est.
g = 1/((d1-d2)^2)
Any rocket exiting the atmosphere will have zero rocket efficiency, but will continue to be pulled back to earth.
IIRC escape velocity from the Earth's surface, and 11.2 km/sec which is orders of magnitude faster than a rocket, which is flying horizontally away over the ocean (directly away from the launch site, because it's not actually flying directly up and into space.
Because it's physically impossible.
They travel eastward to make use of Earth's rotational energy check out this video. Checking the launch acceleration of rockets in practice takes more time.
So this page implies that the slingshot is what allows rockets to leave Earth.
Admittedly it then goes on to talk about fly-bies of other planets but this is the best I can find, the web is utter shit. But it makes sense that this approach works when launching from Earth as well, you even pointed out they fly horizontally, this is why.
The gravity assist isn't an option, because rockets can't escape Earth's gravity to benefit from the gravity of another body.
They have plenty of creative ideas, but rockets don't have any significant function in low a pressure environment.
The exhaust thrust is literally vacuumed out of the engine.
It's unavoidable.
Where the fuck are you gonna get your nitrogen from?
If we feed colonist nothing but slim jims we could extract nitrates from the poop
@bot. If a team of 6 astronauts ate nothing but slim jims for the duration of their flight to Mars, and all waste was collected, by the time they get to Mars how many Mole of nitrates would they have on arrival?
40 pounds of nitrate
that's a lot of poop
Huh. You’re right. Only 3% nitrogen. I wonder if you can still pull it from the atmosphere with electricity at that level. I’m not a chemist. But if we built some nuclear reactors we’d have plenty of electricity.
To be this is a further argument to bring humans last. I think we should attempt to bring whatever life will take the easiest first. Maybe it will need some support like humans would. But it will be less complex supporting something else.
I think it is neat and good that humanity thinks of colonizing the solar system.
I think it is retarded and gay that humanity cannot think about where their nitrogen/poetry comes from.
You've really made me realize that the moon is about as hospitable as Mars is, and is closer. It also has He3. If we ever crack fusion that could be useful.
I think colonizing Mars, or the Moon, would be interesting.
But wouldn't it be more interesting if we forced all Italians to colonize the Sea? No boats allowed.
I hear if they talk enough they tread water pretty good. And believe me, they talk enough.
Yeah, I'd go. Maybe I could open a taco stand.
Mars colonization is pointless. It's putting the cart before the horse.
Venus is closer to Earth, contains more valuable resources, and holds much more promise and answers to space exploration than Mars does.
Mars is just a selling point. The real space colonization begins when we have enough resources to craft a legitimate travel colony on the Moon.
Hi. I feel like we haven't met. Welcome. How do we solve the problem of electronics surviving the surface? The longest we've gotten anything to last there is about 2 hours.
Mars is hostile to life.
What's the point?
Exploration.
First explore with robots. With supply stations in a Lagrange orbit and on the Moon. Master that first by building sustainable habitats - most likely in volcano tubes. Knowing how fragile housing is on Earth I am skeptical. Think of leaky basements, always replacing roofing, etc.
Then try Mars, just to try.
But colonizing is absurd.