Any updates on where the roadster is these days?
Hit every point!- Well, what planet is that behind the car? Seriously, what planet?
- Why aren't we buried under glorious pictures of this planet as easily as Elon Musk gave us?
- Uhh.., chemistry says the dummy and the car and the leather and the steering wheel would i dunno... melt or something?
- Why did this come and go so quickly? People were applauding this on some stage set. It was really awkward. It was immediately off the news the next day, including Reddit (any questionable posts were quickly buried).
- Elon quote "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly." My lord...
- Where is that car now? Did anyone actually track it's flight in it's entirety? Any one care what it's doing now or was this some dog and pony?
- David Bowie was just another bullshit artist who helped usher in this transgender, get weird, suck on any organ on any body of any sex culture that we're reaping the rewards of today (more than ever before). He goes well with fake Elon Musk.
- Why did no one get upset that he basically just launched a piece of garbage into space? I mean, we're all cool with tossing stuff into space and applauding it? You have got to be kidding me.
Ugh, I could go on for days, but all it takes is one look at it. I don't mean to get disagreeable but, if you can honestly look at the video and the pictures, the launch, that weird double-landing shenanigans prior, and still believe Tesla (a car/flamethrower/vacuum cleaner company) launched a car (a convertible no less!) into space with zero burn, zero issues, full video of the spinning earth that has zero land mass, tires fully intact and a cute little version of itself on the dashboard, then you are absolutely bat shit insane.
He is an absolute Kerbal head. I don't understand how Mr Joe public is sat in his mothers spare bed room telling us about space travel!It's getting pretty ridiculous. Whether this is just a marketing campaign or the real thing, you can see they're not even serious about "space travel":
Nothing is needed to thrust against. It's just equal and opposite movement. Nothing fancy, just basic Newtonian physics. Seems a little counter intuitive, but the math seems to add up.He is an absolute Kerbal head. I don't understand how Mr Joe public is sat in his mothers spare bed room telling us about space travel!
How can a rocket propulsion system work in a vacuum of space never mind a jet propulsion system.
We supposedly have a magical altitude where non-vacuum meets vacuum with an apparently weak enough barrier separating the two that we can pop out in to an infinite vacuum and become weightless.
Modern psyence tells us that in space, rockets zoom around outer space with no air to thrust against. What's going on?
"In a rocket engine, fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. In a solid rocket, the propellants are mixed together and packed into a solid cylinder."
So what does it thrust against?
The above claims are not demonstrable in a vacuum on Earth but it is apparently demonstrable in the vacuum of space.
So let's for the sake of this say they are using rocket propulsion (oxygen tanks apposed to gathering oxygen from the atmosphere) when the ship breaks through our theoretical atmosphere and out in to the never ending vacuum of space; what exactly does the propulsion system trust against?
"The blades spin at high speed and compress or squeeze the air. The compressed air is then sprayed with fuel and an electric spark lights the mixture. The burning gases expand and blast out through the nozzle, at the back of the engine. As the jets of gas shoot backward, the engine and the aircraft are thrust forward."
In the nothingness vacuum of space I somehow think the above wouldn't work. The propulsion system would need something to thrust against.
SpaceX’s self-landing rocket is a flying robot that’s great at math
Look at the mockery materialised from the Musk rat. AI technology capable of landing a peice of metal back on terra firma in a beautiful featherly fashion.
"What you’re seeing in the video above is a 40 meter tall SpaceX rocket booster, weighing more than 20 tons, fly itself back to Earth from space and land precisely on a target at Cape Canaveral. What you may be wondering is, how did it do that? The first thing to know is that a rocket booster is in fact a large robot, steering itself back to earth without help from anyone else but its internal computers. The challenge SpaceX CEO Elon Musk set for his reusable rocket team, led by MIT-trained aerospace engineer Lars Blackmore, was to teach the rocket how to fly itself back to earth."
Great input guys!
Newton's third law is:Nothing is needed to thrust against. It's just equal and opposite movement. Nothing fancy, just basic Newtonian physics. Seems a little counter intuitive, but the math seems to add up.
Just came across this. The arch 'ark' what could the real narrative be? And why tell us this info now?
Anyone come across this Arch tech before? I have not.
A quote from Archs website
Our mission is to preserve and disseminate humanity's most important information across time and space, for the benefit of future generations'
Newton's third law is:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
I agree, Newtonian physics applied here on Earth in pressure, this is how airplanes fly.
Rockets expell hot air against particles in our atmopshere to cause a reaction.
Action - Hot gasses
Reaction - Air resistance
Rockets fire out hot gasses at high speeds (action) which heat air particles causing air resistance (reaction) thus pushing the rocket forward.
A vacuum is nothingness so no elements, vacuums suck everything in so there is nothing to cause a reaction. The hot gas would be pulled in every direction.
There is no air to be heated by hot gasses to propel the rocket forward, there has to be air or something to push the hot gasses against or we have no reaction or movement.
So the math does infact add up, when applied to a medium such as our atmosphere but nothing about space adds up!
I'm just supprised they let this one through the bag to be honest, they usually forge some sort of falacious assumptions for their claims. Chose to use objective world principles to materialise otherworldly environments!
Yeah I understand a rocket engine has it's own oxygen but it would still need something to thrust against.Nope. No air required. Your example with turbines was an airplane jet engine that burns air. Rocket fuel brings it's own air (much like gunpowder, which also works in space)
You got Newton's law correct, although your explanation is poor. Expelling rocket gas is the action. The rocket accelerating away is the reaction. Equal and opposite.
It's like standing an an ice sheet and throwing your shoe. Shoe goes one way, you go the other.
I feel like a broken record on this one. A vacuum does not suck. Pressure pushes. Always and Forever Amen.Yeah I understand a rocket engine has it's own oxygen but it would still need something to thrust against.
The hot gas would be sucked in to the vacuum of space and wouldn't have any air resistance to propel the rocket forward.
It's like standing an an ice sheet and throwing your shoe. Shoe goes one way, you go the other.
That statement has no relevance to the vacuum of space at all.
Rockets burn fuel and the exhaust is pressurized for optimum thrust. When the gasses are released they come out at such a high rate that it slams into the atmosphere this causing forward movement.I feel like a broken record on this one. A vacuum does not suck. Pressure pushes. Always and Forever Amen.
A Vacuum Does Not Suck
The statement actually has MORE relevance in the vacuum of space, and the various thought problems often take place in space, as it is a simple way of saying to disregard the atmosphere. It's high school physics.
Just how is it that you think a rocket works? Do you know what a mass ratio is?
I'm on record here as not being sure space even exists, but if it does, there's no problem with rockets.
The rocket does not push against the air. The air would be poorly suited to that purpose anyhow. The exhaust gases push against the rocket. The only air required is fuel oxidizer and they load that on board.
Look at the dry weight vs fueled weight for some of these things. It's mostly fuel. Something called reactive mass, or something to that effect. You only have so many shoes to throw.
Except the experiment you describe has been done to death and what you think will happen is not what happens.Rockets burn fuel and the exhaust is pressurized for optimum thrust. When the gasses are released they come out at such a high rate that it slams into the atmosphere this causing forward movement.
It can’t move the atmosphere out of the way because there is too much of it so the rocket is propelled forward.
In the vacuum of space the exhaust is free to escape so there is no force applied to the rocket and the rocket will not propel as we don't have air resistance.
Its the same thing as a balloon rocket. The air coming out of it is pushing against the air outside of it creating a force. If you put it on wheels the balloon rocket will roll/propel across the floor or table. If you catch the air coming out of the balloon with a vacuum hose the car will not propel.
NASA claims it should propel because it doesn’t need to push off of anything. They say its the ” unbalanced force inside the balloon that makes it move but the experiment proves them wrong.
I don't think the unbalanced force inside could guide a rocket with laser accuracy to an intended destination.
You have a very poor understanding of the physics involved. I'm sorry that I am not a very good writer or teacher.I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure if we are able to replicate the vacuum of space here on Earth, not to keep making excuses but I'm sure the torr levels in space can't be replicated even through gas extraction.
I understand what you are saying about there being lots of videos of rockets generating thrust but don't think it's comparable to the claims at hand.
Gas pressure needs molecules to be in contact with each other, causing thousands even millions of interactions per second.
If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the very first molecule that comes out of the exhaust will immediately zip off into the distance at incredible speed, so will the one behind that and so on, not a single molecule would ever catch up with the first one as you can imagine, they would be travelling in every direction possible. All will zip off into the distance trying to fill the impossible vacuum of space.
So inturn, no matter how much gas you expel none of it will ever change the pressure under the vessel.
None of the gas will ever propel the vessel. To push the vessel there must be locally high pressure, which is impossible since the pressure in space is negative everywhere.
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber through the exhaust into the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any matter, their force is always moving forward or away from the vessel.
There is no chance that the force is returned to the vessel. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be used to propel something forward. Their force would be carried off into these distant so called galaxies, known as Joule Expansion.
Joule expansion - Wikipedia
As soon as the combustion chamber opens, the chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space.
A closed system is under pressure but not an open one.
The combustion chamber is under pressure thus causing ignition and combustion from the oxidation tanks.You have a very poor understanding of the physics involved. I'm sorry that I am not a very good writer or teacher.
The answers are in your very post.
You admit that the exhaust gases are accelerating. What are they accelerating against??? You have already admitted there is nothing there for them to act against, except the rocket. It's the rocket, ldo. If the exhaust is accelerating "away from the rocket" as it does and as you put it, by Newton 3rd law, the rocket must accelerate away from the exhaust at the same time.
You can actually calculate how much fuel this takes.
Once the exhaust gases have left the exhaust opening, "nozzle" in rocketry terms, it is not adding to thrust. It does not "push on the air".
Think about that, assuming the air was monolithic and you could actually "push against" it without getting into fluid dynamics at all, what volume of air it would take to equal the mass of the rocket, plus the thrust? It would be an insane volume of air needed to push against. What stops the air just moving out the way??
By the same notion, it would take a very large volume of the fuel, plus fuel to carry the fuel. Hence the giant fuel tanks, and small payloads. That's why mass ratio is such a basic principle of rocketry.
ETA. Some brush up on pressure vessels and the nature of the supposed vacuum of space are available elsewhere in this board. A near perfect vacuum is not magical. The entire chamber does not become vacuum magically instantaneously. That too is calculable, and experimentation informed then confirmed, and continues to confirm the formulations. There is no such thing as negative pressure, and vacuum does not suck. Pressure pushes. Vacuum means negative relative pressure. 1 bar above 0 at sea level.
Again, it really is this simple.
Rocket <-------- ----------> exhaust gases
The combustion chamber is under pressure thus causing ignition and combustion from the oxidation tanks.
When the gasses leve the pipe no thrust would be generated as the gas would have no molecules to push against to cause the air resistance to move the vessel.
Yes you would have the reaction of the gasses leaving the exhaust from the action of ignition.
Action - ignition
Reaction - gasses exiting the pressurised combustion chamber.
This isn't enough to guide a intended target to a desired destination. You need the next step to actual move and direct the vessel.
Action - gasses leaving the exhaust
Reaction - should be the gasses causing air resistance against the molecules in the air.
You can see why the this wouldn't happen in a vacuum.
You see you need an external reaction to move the vessel, an internal reaction couldn't propel something through a vacuum for millions of miles.
I won't be posting any more replies on here, this circular discussion isn't going anywhere fast.
Let's agree to disagree.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|The Tesla Turbine||Technology||7|
|Nikola Tesla||World-Historical Individuals||3|
|Anyone wanna buy a bit of Tesla? Tesla Terminal A Building for sale||General||11|
|Ditch Tesla, buy Babcock Runabout: 1,244 miles on one battery in 1909||Cars, Bikes and Trains||31|