How do rockets fly in the vacuum of space!?

[Plastic Pilot]

Hi kind sires,

Just fund a video on youtube that was quickly deleted a few days ago about how all the space programs and rockets are a hoax. It explained how rockets can't fly in space by today's technology, like reaction engines, solid fuel, or thermonuclear technology.

I told my father whom is a chemical-biological engineer, and never saw the man with that expression on his face... just went blank for 5 seconds and then tried to figure out how it is possible for the fuel driven technology to produce and induce movement in perfect vacuum and total lack of gravity or other type of electromagnetic field....

The video is no more on youtube, but fund out some other material.


La la la la lie...

 

[Jakko]

There is no "total lack of gravity" in space, and certainly not of electromagnetic fields.

Rockets can fly in a vacuum for the same reason they (and jet engines) can fly in atmosphere: they push mass out the back of the engine. That means Newton's third law of motion ("every action has an opposite but equal reaction") applies: the mere fact of the engine pushing gas out the back, means the engine will be pushed forward.

The reason to use a rocket in space, rather than a jet engine, is because a rocket carries its own oxidiser and all of its reaction mass (namely, fuel plus oxidiser), while a jet engine sucks both oxidiser and most of its reaction mass in through the front (namely, air). Because there is no air in a vacuum, a jet engine naturally won't work there.

 

[Edbert]

chemical/biological =/= aerospace

(my dad worked at NASA from 1961 to 1974)

 

[Jim62]

The real problem is that darned radiation belt that surrounds the earth.

 

[blakeh1]

There is no "total lack of gravity" in space, and certainly not of electromagnetic fields.

Rockets can fly in a vacuum for the same reason they (and jet engines) can fly in atmosphere: they push mass out the back of the engine. That means Newton's third law of motion ("every action has an opposite but equal reaction") applies: the mere fact of the engine pushing gas out the back, means the engine will be pushed forward.

The reason to use a rocket in space, rather than a jet engine, is because a rocket carries its own oxidiser and all of its reaction mass (namely, fuel plus oxidiser), while a jet engine sucks both oxidiser and most of its reaction mass in through the front (namely, air). Because there is no air in a vacuum, a jet engine naturally won't work there.

^Yep,

and for that same reason, if an astronaut was to shoot a gun in space it would propel him backwards.

Also to add...if there was no gravity effects in space, nothing would keep planets in orbit, black holes would not exist, planets would have never formed etc..
Also once in motion, it will never slow theoretically slow down unless captured by a strong gravity field. Gravity assist is also how they "sling shot" things into the outer solar system without wasting as much fuel to boost instead

and interesting tidbit is "weightlessness" experienced by Astronauts is actually , more like a form of free-fall. They still have the same mass

 

[Belugawrx]

The real problem is that darned radiation belt that surrounds the earth.

The real problem is the junk we're leaving orbiting this ball...

 

[Plastic Pilot]

There is no "total lack of gravity" in space, and certainly not of electromagnetic fields.

Rockets can fly in a vacuum for the same reason they (and jet engines) can fly in atmosphere: they push mass out the back of the engine. That means Newton's third law of motion ("every action has an opposite but equal reaction") applies: the mere fact of the engine pushing gas out the back, means the engine will be pushed forward.

The reason to use a rocket in space, rather than a jet engine, is because a rocket carries its own oxidiser and all of its reaction mass (namely, fuel plus oxidiser), while a jet engine sucks both oxidiser and most of its reaction mass in through the front (namely, air). Because there is no air in a vacuum, a jet engine naturally won't work there.

What you say there is what the video was about, it stated that the particles that are gas particles that are expelled from the rocket's burner have nothing against what to push back, because they told us that space is perfect vacuum, so there is nothing. No particles of air, water or anything else.... just nothing to push against. If you want to explain to yourself and others that it is possible for a rocket to push it self against nothing, then I guess that is how they tricked us in believing the hoax that then can fly above the atmosphere.

Or in another case, they just lie to us and space is not vacuum and has some sort of atmosphere.

chemical/biological =/= aerospace

(my dad worked at NASA from 1961 to 1974)

Congrats to your dad for making part of a space program no one can confirm it is what they tell us it is, just lunch a bunch o "hi-tech" rockets things in the sky and some old Hollywood basement and some lights and cameras and off we go... Just mentioned that my father is an chemical engineer to point out that the man has knowledge about spotting some of the lies they make us believe on the TV.

 

[Plastic Pilot]

The real problem is that darned radiation belt that surrounds the earth.

https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/stories/van-allen-belts/

 

[JackCW]

There is no "total lack of gravity" in space, and certainly not of electromagnetic fields.

Rockets can fly in a vacuum for the same reason they (and jet engines) can fly in atmosphere: they push mass out the back of the engine. That means Newton's third law of motion ("every action has an opposite but equal reaction") applies: the mere fact of the engine pushing gas out the back, means the engine will be pushed forward.

The reason to use a rocket in space, rather than a jet engine, is because a rocket carries its own oxidiser and all of its reaction mass (namely, fuel plus oxidiser), while a jet engine sucks both oxidiser and most of its reaction mass in through the front (namely, air). Because there is no air in a vacuum, a jet engine naturally won't work there.

A vacuum in a lack of matter, not gravity. There is gravity in a vacuum.

 

[Rob]

I think someone has a vacuum in their head.

 

[Jakko]

nothing to push against.

If it helps you, think about it like this: The rocket pushes itself against its own exhaust gas.

Or think of it another way: guns. When a gun fires a bullet, the gun itself suffers recoil: it pushes back against the shooter's hands or shoulder. Where do you think this recoil comes from? It happens because the bullet and the propellant gases go forward, which result in the gun being pushed the other way.

Hell, go find a garden hose, connect it to the tap, and turn it on. You will feel the hose push back in your hand because of all the water coming out. This has nothing to do with the water pushing against the hose as such — the water floes through it, so if anything, it would pull the hose along with it. The reason the hose is pushed backwards is because of Newton's third law of motion: when the water comes out of the end, it results in the hose being moved the other way.

If you want to explain to yourself and others that it is possible for a rocket to push it self against nothing, then I guess that is how they tricked us in believing the hoax that then can fly above the atmosphere.

The hoax here is trying to make people believe a rocket can't work in a vacuum, and/or to make them believe that the atmosphere goes on indefinitely. Please don't say you believe in a flat earth, too.