Why Rockets Can NOT Work In Space/Vacuum

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Look at it THIS way instead. Let's simply reduce the thrust of the Saturn V rockets to less than the weight, in pounds of the rocket and it's fuel. 6,540,000 of rocket and fuel....and reduce the thrust from 7,500,000 pounds of thrust down to....say...6,539,999 pounds of thrust. 1 pound short of the thrust required to life the rocket.
   
   In this scenario, the rocket would burn up all it's fuel without lifting off the launch pad.
   
   So in the next scenario, figure out how much thrust will be required to move a fully fueled Saturn V rocket already in orbit, from a cold start. hmmm....I wonder how much thrust it would take?
   
   You know, since it doesn't have to push against ANYthing at all right? It just MAGICALLY moves since it is a rocket, right?
   
   OR, does "Inertia" really exist, and the rocket needs to push against SOMETHING to move in reference to something else?
2. There's nothing to cause feedback into the rocket so, no propulsion.
   The path of least resistance in space is of course 0 and really, it's NEGATIVE so it will accelerate the discharge.
   I believe we've been to other planets but, sure as fuck wasn't using rockets and tin cans.
   
   Once you study electron physics, which is true quantum physics, Newton is pretty much used as a means to brainwash the ignorant and inherently stupid. You either have the brain to see the deception or you don't.
   Trying to teach the truth to people is a lot of hard work but, I guess afterward they have indeed made an evolutionary advancement for their genome to pass onto their children.
3. No S Numbers, Your theory sound logical, however it does not work out in practice. If you go to my channel you will find a very easy to repeat experiment that shows rockets work in a vacuum,..P
4. "The Truth is bitter but Righteous" .. Well said.
   
   You're absolutely correct. Newton's 3rd Law has no Jurisprudence in a Vacuum or in Space ..
5. Well, I looked at your 4th law contribution.   As far as it's possible to see, all you did was to take the orthogonal components of a force meeting an obstruction at an angle.  So what?  If there is a component of the motion that is at 90 degrees to the surface it will impart that proportion of the energy to the motion of the obstacle. If there isn't, it won't.   Why would you assume otherwise?  Forget your silly interpretation of 'degrees of freedom' and consider each component direction in turn.
6. Newton is the greatest scientist of his time and even today. Maybe you
   think this because others consider Einstein a genius, but Einstein made
   some errors from a physical point of view, like calling "Brownian
   motion" something resembling to the work of Bachelier, i.e. confusing
   jumps in position and jumps in velocity (observed under his microscope
   by R. Brown). Actually, jumps in velocity contradict the law of
   conservation of linear momentum, so that one prefers to say that they
   result from collision with very small particles, forgetting that it
   could just be particles interacting with waves
7. Do you know who invented F=ma?
    F=ma was proposed in 1716 in a book
   by Jacob Hermann (1678-1733, Mathematician). Newton’s Principia (1st
   edition 1686, 2nd edition 1713, and 3rd edition 1726) does not contain
   this formula. If this is the case, why does Newton get great credit for
   this law, which he has not invented?
   
   where  in any of the
   rocket citation does it say there is a force because? and if you still
   dont belive what i say about F=ma....F a so called force can only be a
   force if it interacts with something other than the rocket alone this is
   important to grasp as F=ma is not actually how newton described the
   second law
   One problem frequently observed by physics educators is
   that students tend to apply Newton's Third Law to pairs of 'equal and
   opposite' forces acting on the same object.[4][5] This is incorrect; the
   Third Law refers to forces on two different objects.
   can you now see
   the second and the third laws  are combined.....but F=ma is the sophist
   argument not off newtons principia and it assumes Force in space but
   does not prove there is a force in space.....
8. Moving gas into a vacuum, such as from inside a rocket in space to outside, is not a process that requires work. This is because free expansion of gas allows/enters a vacuum "for free", no work is needed or done. The gas does not push outward from inside the rocket and is not pulled in by the vacuum of space. Natures seeks to bring the two sides, high pressure and zero pressure, into equilibrium and does so for "no charge". Although this is a well-known result in Physical Chemistry and Thermodynamics you almost never hear of it in the context of space rocketry because it wreaks havoc on the NASA-led theories of thrust...add to this Collisions
   between gas particles or collisions with the walls of the container are
   perfectly elastic. None of the energy of a gas particle is lost when it
   collides with another particle or with the walls of the container.
9. Collisions
   between gas particles or collisions with the walls of the container are
   perfectly elastic. None of the energy of a gas particle is lost when it
   collides with another particle or with the walls of the container.
10. why cant a rocket enter space vacuum....
    
    There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
    1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
    2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
    3. Conservation of Momentum
    4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
    
    I have explanations for all four...but ill skip straight to the second F=ma as it closes the door entirely to space travel using rockets....
    Firstly you have to comprehend Joules expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_expansion
    In a nutshell ... In free expansion there is no resistance to the fluid at system boundary as
    the volume of fluid increases to fill up the vacuum space.
    
    Since, vacuum does not offer any resistance there is no work transfer involved in free expansion.
    
    This experiment is verified and i often get rebuttals saying ""its all in a container"" the reason its done in a container is because the experiment is about effects of gas in a vacuum..so to do this experiment here in the atmosphere requires a box.
    Free expansion shows us that you cannot throw eject or push a gas into a vacuum..the reason is because.... Moving gas into a vacuum, such as from inside a rocket in space to outside, is not a process that requires work. This is because free expansion of gas allows/enters a vacuum "for free", no work is needed or done. The gas does not push outward from inside the rocket and is not pulled in by the vacuum of space. Natures seeks to bring the two sides, high pressure and zero pressure, into equilibrium and does so for "no charge". Although this is a well-known result in Physical Chemistry and Thermodynamics you almost never hear of it in the context of space rocketry because it wreaks havoc on the NASA-led theories of thrust.
    To elaborate further about free expansion you simply cannot force, push, eject, thrust, accelerate or throw a gas into a vacuum..
    
    So herein lies the problem with F=ma....F a force firstly needs to interact with its surroundings and must collaborate with an opposite force to actually be a FORCE......m mass from the rocket the exhaust gas needs to interact with the rocket and a collaborating second body('Equal and opposite')
    One problem frequently observed by physics educators is that students tend to apply Newton's Third Law to pairs of 'equal and opposite' forces acting on the same object.[4][5] This is incorrect; the Third Law refers to forces on two different objects.
    And now (a) acceleration of mass...just because a mass is moving does not mean it does any work. Mass in motion has the property of momentum which is not the same as force. In order for momentum to be turned into force it must interact with something else other than the rocket itself.('Equal and opposite')
    
    Thats the brass tacs of why rockets cannot propel themselves in a vacuum....
11. This has to be a troll video nobody is this stupid
12. I was taught in science in school that in space without a suit and helmet etc your head would just expand as there's no pressure pushing on it like there is on earth, that's leads me to believe that rockets don't work in space as there wouldn't be anything pushing back the thrust from them.
13. Simple and great point. Without a reaction there cannot exist an action.
14. oxygen has NOTHING to do with newtons third law. it is just one of the fuels a jet engine needs to work. this is why rockets carry their own oxygen into space
15. I am a proponent
    for the fact that rockets
    work in a vacuum
    
    all the flat earthers have a point but they haven't seen it through rockets when in a vacuum can still eject the exhaust gas and accelerate forward and it still expands in every direction let me explain when the exhaust gas is ejected the speed is absolutely astounding usually around 2 miles per second so in order for it to immediately curve off in every direction into the infinite void it would take additional energy to redirect it from its previous course eventually it will evenly disperse but not "instaneously"
    
    also the dispute that a rocket needs air to push off of is unfounded the relatively low amount of air in the atmosphere currently wouldn't really aid it's ascent because while air is compressible it still isn't compressible for this to be the only way a rocket can generate thrust really air pressure is a hinderence in the form of aerodynamic drag
    
    next the claim that equal and opposite reactions requires the exhaust gas to push of something to work is unfounded and untrue because the initial ejection of the gas is actually pushing against the rocket giving it it's acceleration because 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
    
    if you still think somehow rocker engines need air and high pressure exhaust to work that is also untrue rocket engines are designed to operate as close to ambient pressure as possible some engine like the h-1 operate under the atmospheric pressure because when the exhaust pressure is lower you get a faster exhaust and faster exhaust means more thrust because F=M*A when you double the mass you get double the force but when you double the acceleration you get quadruple the force
    if you still want proof
    The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
    
    Newton's Third Law is usually expressed as, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," and you can also think of it as "Forces always come in pairs." While you are pushing on the medicine ball, Newton's Third Law says that the medicine ball is also pushing on you. Thus, you are accelerated by the force acting (backward) on you by the medicine ball. Never mind that it was you who decided to start the pushing in the first place; you can't push on the ball without having the ball push back. Forces always come in pairs.
    
    Of course, rockets work on more sophisticated principles than just tossing fuel out the back. First, the fuel is burned and its hot exhaust gases are expelled at very high velocity (if you toss the medicine ball faster, your body experiences greater backward force). And the rocket's exhaust nozzle has a narrowing so as to squirt the exhaust gasses out even faster, like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. Exhaust from chemical propulsion (i.e., fuel-burning propulsion) is typically expelled at 2 km/s (= 4500 mph), and your average rocket mass at launch is 80-85% propellant (fuel + oxidizer), most of which eventually gets squirted out.
    
    
    
    not to mention the years of scientific research and exploration that has come about because of the rockets ability to operate in space
    
    if this doesn't answer your questions let me know cause I would very much like to help
16. You are forgetting the fact that the gases have mass, and expelling them in one direction has a reaction on the rocket in the opposite direction, (third law) no matter if there is air outside or not.   Imagine floating in space, holding something like a weight.  Throw it in one direction and you move in the opposite direction.  yes?  Now throw gasses extremely quickly in one direction (say, using a container with gas at high pressure in it,  and opening one end) and you will again feel a force in the opposite direction.  You are correct saying F=ma.  the Force on you (or the rocket) equals the force that the gasses being accelerated in one direction have because of the chemical explosion.  Air doesn't take any part in the production of that force.
17. Rockets work precisely because of Newton's third law. Th fuel ignites and the gases exit from the rocket in one direction (the action ) pushing the rocket in the other direction (the reaction)
18. I'm afraid this video is quite wrong.
    
    There are TWO action/reaction events occurring when a rocket moves through the atmosphere.
    
    Action/reaction #1: the hot gasses are accelerated backwards vs. the rocket being pushed forward. The instant the hot gasses move, there is an opposite and equal reaction. The gasses can't be start moving backwards without at the same instance there being an opposite and equal force in the opposite direction.
    
    Action/reaction #2: the hot gasses hit the atmosphere. The hot gasses get slowed or pushed in some direction vs. the atmosphere getting pushed back in the direction the hot gasses were traveling.
    
    There is ONE action/reaction event that occurs when a rocket operates in a vacuum. The gases go from a state of no motion to a state of motion. The force pushing the gases backwards must have an opposite and equal force pushing something forward. The object being pushed forward is the rocket.
    
    The rocket isn't pushing against the air. The rocket is pushing against the hot gasses.
    
    Here's a video of someone doing this exact thing... a rocket in a vacuum.
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFMObYCccU
    
    Here's another
    
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CNvZj-gko
19. Всем взаимная подписка! Thank you for the wonderful video! Come to us, we also have a new video! All mutual subscription!
20. "You can't disagree with newtons third law..."
    
    So ANY mass you eject or push away, will cause you to move in the opposite direction.