EXCERPT; No, no, no, no, newhhhhhoh! Lol. Now you are truly grasping at straws. Or you are confusing the principals of fluid dynamics (a cuz of fluid mechanics) that deals with fluid flow. Bernoulli would be aghast! To say nothing of the the principles covered by theoretical physics etc. My friend why don't you just admit when you are wrong instead of throwing up mounds of pseudo science babble and what seems to be plagiarized bits and pieces strung together with wishful thinking? Even if you really think you are correct you do not produce a coherent argument complete with sources and such things to back up the fantastic claims produced by you. In any case again I am not attacking your person which I as a christian love like a brother, I do however want to have a productive debate with you etc. Notes ; Maybe if you will not listen to me you will beleive a web source ? reva
Rev.....I am aware that a Rockets Burn Stream is not the only reason it moves in Space although in Atmosphere the Burn Stream is pushing against Atmosphere and in Space without atmospheric resistance this Burn Stream can propell a rocket faster as there is no air resistance. But the reson the Rocket Moves in SPACE is because of the INTERNAL BURN STREAM as say we were using a SOLID ROCKET PROPELLENT. The moment the bottom pack chemical solid was ignited it will explode a burn in the direction of the Rocket Casing and Motors force the burn out. As the propellemt is used up there exists an INTERNAL STREAM. When using Liquid Fuels.....they are pumped in a Fluid Dynamic Matter in the SAME WAY AS THE HOSE MOVES.....except they are pumped to the Burn Stream which is the exact same thing as the Water Stream in it's nature. If the Rocket's Burn entered a Fracture in Time and Space and the Burn Stream disapeered out of this Universe....the ROCKET WOULD NOT MOVE!! Just as the Garden Hose would not move. Do you understand now what I am explaining? AboveAlpha
>>>>>BOLD MINE FOR CLARITY <<<<< WADR, Incorrect (the bolded is completely totally incorrect) ! As incorrect as your last statements. Using a Solid or liquid fuel and oxidizer makes not one whit of difference as to why the rocket provides forward thrust or movement! The chemical reaction (the burning fuel) ejects (a reaction) the mass of 'burned' fuel from the rocket nozzle which causes a equal reaction (motion opposite of the nozzle). Its simple. The chemical reaction burning of the fuel causes it to be ejected from the rocket. I understand you are totally confused and do not understand a basic law of science. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. When fuel is ejected out of a rocket engine as burned gases it has the mass of the fuel in those gasses. It does not matter what kind of rocket fuel is used solid or liquid as to the principle involved. The only reason a water hose moves is the mass (the water) is being ejected via the force of gravity or a pump located in a cities water works. When the water is turned off it simply stops ejecting mass from the nozzle and there is no equal reaction pushing against the hose because by turning the water off you have no reaction (water exiting the hose) to produce the equal reaction (the force of the hose pushing against your hand etc). I am really surprised that no one has jumped in and taught AA the error of his ways! notes; FROM THE WEB; Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarised as follows. First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3] Second law: The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. reva
You still are not getting what I am trying to explain...and what I am talking about is completely in line with Newtonian Physics. I will make this even simpler. I am in Space....there is a Baseball in Space with me and it is relative to my motion in orbit. I touch the Baseball with my finger and it assumes a velocity relative to our orbital velocity of 10 mph away from me. It's velocity is constant as it moves away from me unless it encounters another mass or encounters a Gravitational Effect. Now.....whether the rocket is Chemical Solid or Liquid...once ignited an explosive burning stream exists the rocket motor....without the Rocket Casing and Motor Nozzels the Propelent would just either explode all at once or burn in a non-uniform manner. It is the ROCKET CASING holding the solid propellent and the Liquid Fuel Lines pumping the Liquid Fuel to the Rocket Motor Nozzels that act in the same as the Water Hose. In the case of the Solid Propellant the ROCKET CASING acts like the Hose. In the case of the Liquid Propellant the Liquid Fuel Pump Lines to the Rocket Motors Nozzels act as the Hose. In BOTH CASES.....if at the moment the Burn Stream of either type of Propelled Rockets DISAPEARED into a Rift of Space-Time......THE ROCKETS WOULD NOT MOVE!!! This concept can also be expressed in Magnetic Repulsion. If you have two strong Magnets and you were to attempt to force either the two Positive ends or the teo negative ends together....they repel each other. HOWEVER.....as the REASON that they repel each other being that the Electron Orbits are OVER FULL on the Negative one end and NOT FULL on the Positive End.....and when Negative and Positive Ends of two Magnets are brought together they pull toward each other....when either two positive or two negative ends are brought together they repell each other. Now.....imagine the Space-Time between two Negative Ends was removed.....along with the over charged Electron Outer Orbital Fields.....the two Negative ends would be able to be placed next to each other with no repulsion. In Space a Rocket Burn Stream shoots out the end of the rocket and since there is no air or matter for this explosive burn stream to push against.....the Newly Released Explosive Burning Gas pushes against the now slower moving previously released Buring Gas Stream. The Rocket will continue to accelerate during the Burn thus the newest released burning gas stream IS ALWAYS coming out of a Rocket Casing that is accelerating. The stream always unless throttled up...remains constant. Without the stream.....the ROCKET WOULD NOT MOVE!! AboveAlpha
Here..... Rocket propellant is a material used by a rocket as, or to produce in a chemical reaction, the reaction mass (propulsive mass) that is ejected, typically with very high speed, from a rocket engine to produce thrust, and thus provide spacecraft propulsion. A chemical rocket propellant undergoes exothermic chemical reactions to produce hot gas. There may be a single propellant, or multiple propellants; in the latter case one can distinguish fuel and oxidizer. The gases produced expand, which accelerates them until they rush out of the back of the rocket at extremely high speed. In doing so, the reaction force of the gases pushes back against a nozzle, accelerating the rocket in the opposite direction. For smaller attitude control thrusters, a compressed gas escapes the spacecraft through a propelling nozzle. LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant Now if at the moment the expanding gas burning came out of the nozzle and entered into a Rift of Space and Time...and no stream existed....no THRUST COULD EXIST. As well the push against the Stream by new ejected burning Gas allows acceleration even if the Burn Rate is constant it wil reach a maximum accelerated state in space but with the additional push against the stream acceleration will continue to increase indefinitely as long as you had unlimited fuel even if the release was constant. AboveAlpha
I think I understand what you think I am saying that you disagree with. I am talking about a Rocket having an INTERAL STREAM THAT ONCE IGNITED CAUSED AN EXPLOSIVE BURN AND GAS EXPANSION THAT PUSHES OUT AGAINST THE NOZZLES.....and as I stated that at the moment this burn was to exit the nozzles it went into a rift in space and time the Rocket would not move. I THINK you are thinking that I am saying is at the ENTIRELY TO THE ENDING OF THE STREAM....that this is being pushed against and that is why the Rocket moves. THAT is not what I am attempting to explain. There is a small specific area and length of the Explosive Exhaust Stream where once the Propellant is rleased and explosively burns that this distance and area of expanding gas PUSHES UPON THE NOZZLES. It is as if I had a Bottle Rocket...lit it and as the Powder burns the casing of the Bottle Rocket contains the burn stream that causes an explosive force to repell against the end of the bottle rockets casing. With a Liquid Propellant the fuel DOES NOT EXPLOSIVELY IGNITE UNTIL IT CLEARS THE NOZZLE and then the back burn gas pressure follows the ejected liquid fuel right back to the nozzle. In a Solid Rocket the CASING is like the Water Hose. But in each case the explosive force PUSHES against either the Nozzles or pushes against the yet unburned solid fuel deep inside the Rocket Casing. I think you might have thought I was saying the ehaust tail of burned gas was being pushed on....since the Rocket would be accelerating faster than this burned gas the newly ejected burning gas could not reach it. I specifically used the Garden Hose exaple to show that it is the internal Burn Stream of a Solid Fuel Rocket that propells it and it is the Exlosive Expanding Gas expelled from the Rockets Nozzles that is ignited at first beyond the end of the Nozzle that blows back and burns right up to the nozzles themselves. AboveAlpha
How Fast Can Humans Travel In Space ? Relative to what ? Shouldn't the question concern acceleration? At speed, I am just standing still in my space conveyor. Does non linear space warping count as "fast" or just timely? Moi r > g View attachment 35586 India can launch successful Space vehicles, even to Mars. Where is the Space program?
There are THREE schools of thought as far as being able to traverse vast Interstelar Distance in a Timely and Viable Manner. #1. Folding Space-Time. #2. Creating a Warp Bubble just around the craft. #3 Wormhole Travel. It is not possible to use PROPULSION as a viable and timely method of Interstellar Travel. One must either have access to a Wormhole that would have the unlikely ability to get you to where you want to go.....or....Develop and Understand the UFT....Unified Field Theory thus be able to generate a Multiversal Matter/Antimatter Cascade Reaction as there does not exist enough Antimatter in the Universe to react with matter to generate the enormous amount of energy to represent mass to warp or fold space-time to the necessary degree to obtain Interstelllar Travel. AboveAlpha
Do those 3 count as "fast" And how fast can a human travel in space. I oppose number one and two because they will eventually create serious rifts in Space/Time. Sort of Space Smog when the bending and twisting becomes too extreme and common. Like when there were just a few, than lots of smoggy cars in the L.A. basin. BTW do you feel constricted or otherwise limited at 670, 616, 629 miles per hour ? Do your friends at DARPA know? Moi r > g View attachment 35587
If using propulsion as long as acceleration is at a constant 1-G.....and using perhaps Nuclear Pulse Detonation Engines.....Human Beings could travel at a rate of close to 1/10th c......or 10% the Speed of Light which is 186,282 Miles per Second. However without a proper SHIELD be it physical which is impracticle so thus we would need a combination of both a High Strength Physical Shield and as well an Electromagnet Shield in order to avoid the destruction of the Space Craft from impacting tiny Dust Particles even if they were Molecule Size....the ship would not survive. As well 1/10th c would be the very upper limit at which a Propulsion Drive System could bring us to never mind all the issues of Time Dilation as at this velocity 1 year passing on the ship would be CENTURIES passing on Earth. The ONLY way to travel Interstellar Distances in a viable and timely manner would be to either FOLD SPACE-TIME.....which is what Gravity is doing but we would have to generate enormous amounts of energy to represent Mass....or to create a Warp Bubble like on Star Treck which allows the Craft to travel in what would be considered SUB-SPACE. This would not have any detrimental effect on Space-Time as large Celestial Bodies and Constructs like Galaxies do this as well Black Holes exist and are not destroying the entire Universe. AboveAlpha
<<<<<< MY REPLY IS ADDRESSED TO ALL YOUR POSTS IN THIS THREAD. I am getting tired of trying to correct your many MANY mistakes and falsehoods that it seems you have dreamed up. In any case here it is from the web; In space, an engine has nothing to push against. So how do rockets move there? Rockets work by a scientific rule called Newton's third law of motion. English scientist Sir Isaac Newton listed three Laws of Motion. He did this more than 300 years ago. His third law says that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rocket pushes on its exhaust. The exhaust pushes the rocket, too. The rocket pushes the exhaust backward. The exhaust makes the rocket move forward. That's all you or anyone needs to know when it comes to why does a rocket work in space and on earth etc. However source your claims with a valid website or book. Please do not cut and paste a zillion word document and say the answer is there somewhere. Highlight the pertinent information (please). Hey if someone could find a shard of that stuff it would be better as rocket fuel than what the space shuttle used! reva
Those seem like plausable ideas. In other words the things that could have happened etc are potential futures and potential pasts that are still out there but stored as what could have been or could be? (damn I am starting to sound like AA). There are so many theories and hypothesis that attempt to describe how the universe began these days ! As far as backwards time travel goes, I tend to stick to the grandfather paradox where a poor chap finds himself in a identical universe from the one he left except of course the new universe splits off with a new time line immediately when he entered the past. My take is probably wrong, lol because its forces the universe to be a logical system with rational outcomes, nothing at all like the universe really is! Thanks for your interesting reply Gelecski. Oh one more thing. Your idea would satisfy the concept that most physicists have of time. That is that the past present and future are not linear but are all here now. All at once, they use the raisin bread loaf analogy where the raisins are events in the universe ie the loaf. Somehow that makes sense! Ok now that I am starting to like the non-intuitive stuff, I am going to get a shot of balies and creme to go with my espresso ad coffee....the speed ball of the boomers ....reva
I am not disputing Newton's 3rd Law. I am trying to explain that just like the hose example the explosive expanding gas stream that exits the rocket is pushing back against the nozles once it has been ignited. The stream in a Liquid Fueled Rocket must first pass through the nozzles then be ignited thus there is a distance from the Nozzle of explosive blow back. In a solid fuel rocket the stream exists and originates at different locations as the fuel is burned thus the rocket casing represents the hose casing. AboveAlpha
Well, first humans would have to go to space. Since that hasn't ever happened, nor will it ever, your question is one of pointless romanticized fantasy.
Not so. It is just the opposite. The gases tend to be escaping faster than when the rocket is in the atmosphere. As the web article indicates, high exit gas velocity is important. High pressure is needed for the forward thrust component. That is why the cone must be more restrictive in space travel. Gases pushing onto other outgoing gases is a reality but not the source of thrust. Its all about differential due to escaping gas. The pumping of liquid fuel thru fuel lines into the combustion chamber is not closely analogous to the water hose w/nozzle. The fuel nozzles are too small and they can be directed sidewise into the combustion chamber. While it is true that the fuel pressure must exceed the pressure in the combustion chamber in order to maintain fuel flow, the pumping action and fuel flow is not the source of thrust force. It is true that thrust is produced along the cone of the nozzle, but not all of the thrust. As the web article states, about half is produced in the combustion chamber and half along the nozzle cone. A rubber balloon full of compressed gas has internal forces equal in all directions until the nozzle is opened. The escape of gas results in a net reduction of force on the rear side of the balloon. The force differential between the front and rear propels the balloon. The water hose nozzle does not have any front other than more oncoming water. Thus it is true that the thrust force is pushing against the water supply. However, the nozzle is smaller than the hose, so there is a force differential here too, but the hose wouldnt move so easily if it couldnt bend. Likewise, combustion chamber gases moving towards the nozzle must be pushing against other gases, including the gases in the front of the combustion chamber, which are pushing against the front of the chamber and providing the forward force component. Still, it is the differential that produces the forward thrust, not the exit of gas pushing against other gases that are further in exit. Similarly, expanding gases moving along the nozzle cone are pushing against the cone and against other gases towards the front, but pushing against other gases further out the rear is not the source of thrust. Rev. A, we caught Above Alpha holding onto a misconception. He is rarely this far off, and is almost always a great source of valuable information and insight.
I admit in your first quote of me I screwed up.....I made a mistake in my explaination of Fuel Line Streaming to Nozzle ejection and blow back in space....I admit it. I made a mistake. AboveAlpha
Ok everyone is entitled to their opinion even if sounds silly. And your reply harms or demeans no one. But I gotta know, do you really hold that truly remarkable opinion? Or are you just trolling? However if serious where do you think space begins (in miles from sea level on earth). reva
Ok since you manned up on that one do you now admit that a rocket motor does not push against the air? It really is only ejecting a massive amount tons in many cases of burnt gasses at a high veloicty in one direction. Newton said that if a rocket or a water hose ejected a hundred tons of mass out the rocket engines nozzle and the gasses achieved a hypersonic veloicty the rocket would move in the opposite direction (up) with the same energy ie a hundred tons and it would have the same energy a hypersonic exhaust veloicty would provide. Also a rocket engines thrust is the same* in space or in earths atmosphere because the engine operates on newtons law instead of pushing against the air! * By the same I mean there may be tiny tiny way tiny variations of the rockets thrust in space or in earths atmospheres but its so small as not to be measurable with diagnostic instruments. reva
You certainly did when you claimed that a rocket motor etc pushes against the air and that the thrust is higher in the atmosphere than in space, all that disputes Newtons laws of motion etc. Yes of course. You are just stating the obvious! Meaningless information. Still "the rocket is pushing back against the nozles once it has been ignited" is obeying newtons law, and it pushes against the entire rocket not just the nozzle. WRONG! And it still has nothing to do with the original argument where you butchered Newtons laws. Now for some reason you are talking rocket engine design and even got that wrong! In a liquid fuel rocket the fuel and the oxidizer is injected into the combustion chamber and ignited inside that chamber, Then it goes out the nozzle which is designed to maximize efficiency. [/QUOTE] WRONG!!! The solid fueled rockets fuel casing sometimes does double duty as the vehicles outside skin. Most large solid fueled use at least two tubes around the fuel grain then another tube to protect the fuel grain from the environment. IN a solid fueled rocket the fuel and Oxidizer are mixed together and poured into a cast. This is called the fuel grain. The SF engine has a nozzle in the end. Its ignited with a fuse or electrical igniter. A SF engine needs no combustion chamber and burning gasses exits a nozzle. Up up and away it goes. There is a third type rocket motor called a hybrid but schools out forever~ <<<owed to the coop<<<< reva deception is legion
I absolutely have nothing personal against AA. However when I see a truly awful misstatement or falsehood I like it corrected for the members who may not know its false and embarrass themselves by repeating it. All I want is a correction. Also I fully welcome any one that notices my mistakes too, and I am an expert at making mistakes and typos !
Man cannot go past 100,000 feet or so. The sky's the limit, as they say. That's why NASA launch sites are over the ocean, why all launches head out over the ocean, and why after a certain height, always curve back down towards earth.
100,000 feet ? I traveled a lot before I went broke a few years back. Modern passenger aircraft have a fairly low ceiling but my first commercial flight was aboard a 707 early model, man that pilot pulled Gs for what seemed forever. Finally when the blood returned to my head I asked him our attitude (I sat right behind him and the cockpit door remained open the entire flight from Anchorage to Chicago IL , yep a different world then. He said you liked that climb? We are at 39 000 feet and will level off at 40 thou ! I had no idea those jets had such a high ceiling and rate of climb. So dude was I half way to space by your criteria ? Most scientists etc say 'space' officially begins at an altitude of 62 miles, or 327,000 feet. Hmm a 707 taps out at 43,000 ft... I guess the reason I find it so easy to beleive we have been to space and to the moon is because dad worked at what was known then as Cape Canaveral, now I think its the Kennedy Space center. As children our teachers allowed us to watch the NASA rockets lift off. The ground shook and we needed sunglasses because of the fuel some rockets used then. They looked about the size of a pencil from where we stood. Anyway to each his own my friend ~ reva
