Do you think there is a Tesla roadster flying through space?

Is there a Tesla car in space?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • No

    Votes: 49 87.5%

  • Total voters
    56

JustWow

Active member
Messages
37
Reactions
113
- 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...
- Nope.
- 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.
The whole idea insults the intelligence of anyone with a functioning brain. I think we are supposed to think that it is earth behind the car. Which begs the question- who took the picture?
 

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
524
"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."

If there is no thrust, then how do the gases move???? If the gases are moving, as you say, what is the equal and opposite force for those moving gases?? When did they start moving? Under what force are they accelerating??? There is your problem/answer, more or less in entirety. Answer those correctly and you will see how a rocket works, and you won't have factored in the atmosphere at all. (TO actually calculate the gases velocity, you would, but that's neither here nor there)

I will not agree to disagree on this one. One is correct and the other is not. It irritates me when alternative theories are so easily dismissed because they are full of basic errors. The really good theories get dismissed with it.

"Of course that guy is full of it, he thinks rockets push on the air" -- Says anyone who paid attention in high school physics or works a job dealing with pressure and combustion, and then dismisses everything else you have to say as uninformed and uneducated. Who will read an article, when the headline is wrong?

I don't do that, but I don't teach or explain well either. You have to educate yourself. Look into how a rocket engine nozzle is designed and why. It all has to do with how much mass and velocity passes through that opening, because that is how it generates thrust.

Your terms are all mixes up. It's ok, I'm wrong as often as I am right, but not this time. Just let it go, and learn how it really works. Your theory is based on some very flawed assumptions on how these things operate. Physics is not some mystical language where you use a crystal ball to find the answer. It is the very basic observations and calculations of the interactions between physical matter. It's been done and done to death. The formulas are well established and have been tested time and time again.

The fuel is ignited in the compression chamber, with the oxidizer. This creates high pressure, inside the combustion chamber of the rocket. When that pressure is released through the nozzle, the exhaust gases go out the nozzle. It is the pressure differential that causes the movement. The energy for the movement was stored as chemical energy in the fuel. When it was combusted, some energy is lost as heat and light and the rest is stored as pressure. As the exhaust gases escape the nozzle the very same, equal and opposite forces are acting on the rocket. Once the exhaust is out in the atmosphere (OR LACK THEREOF) It is no longer generating thrust.

You can calculate EXACTLY how much force a rocket engine will generate, and the air plays no part in it at all. Try it.

FYI, This is not remotely related to the way an airplane generates lift. This is thrust, not lift.

ETA. This is why:
Space Shuttle :165,000 pounds empty
External tank : 78,100 pounds
Solid rocket booster : 185,000 pounds empty
Solid rocket booster : 185,000 pounds empty

Fuel
Solid rocket booster : 1,100,000 pounds
Solid rocket booster : 1,100,000 pounds
The External tank : 1,585,000 pounds

(143,000 gallons of liquid oxygen (1,359,000 pounds) and 383,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen (226,000 pounds))


About 4.4 million pounds to send up a 165k pound vessel.

It is a gun or cannon acting in reverse over a longer time period with the propellant as the projectile.
I can demonstrate how NASAs version of the third law is flawed since it comprises only two force’s action and reaction, Newtons third law is actually made up of 3 forces when you think about it.

Action
Reaction
Resistance


If we have a cyclist suspended in the air although the pedals turn the wheel the bicycle will not move forward.

It’s pretty obvious why. Drop him to the ground and the bicycle with start to move forward.

As the bike pedals are moved from the cyclist, the chain turns the wheels pushing the surface of the road away (resistance)

This demonstrates that without a resistant force to push away from there can be no action or reaction and therefore, no movement.

Ive heard the old skateboard / bowling ball scenario to prove how rockets can thrust but unfortunately this doesn’t cut it.

Action and reaction can’t work without resistance.

In the above scenario we are talking about static inertia and this is essentially the resistant force. So when we have a skateboarder pushing a ball away he and the skateboard will obviously move in the opposite direction.

But again in reality you would gain exactly the same effect from pushing off a wall!

Newtons third law proves that action and reaction are impossible to function without some resistant force.

TH
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,349
I can demonstrate how NASAs version of the third law is flawed since it comprises only two force’s action and reaction, Newtons third law is actually made up of 3 forces when you think about it.

Action
Reaction
Resistance


If we have a cyclist suspended in the air although the pedals turn the wheel the bicycle will not move forward.

It’s pretty obvious why. Drop him to the ground and the bicycle with start to move forward.

As the bike pedals are moved from the cyclist, the chain turns the wheels pushing the surface of the road away (resistance)

This demonstrates that without a resistant force to push away from there can be no action or reaction and therefore, no movement.

Ive heard the old skateboard / bowling ball scenario to prove how rockets can thrust but unfortunately this doesn’t cut it.

Action and reaction can’t work without resistance.

In the above scenario we are talking about static inertia and this is essentially the resistant force. So when we have a skateboarder pushing a ball away he and the skateboard will obviously move in the opposite direction.

But again in reality you would gain exactly the same effect from pushing off a wall!

Newtons third law proves that action and reaction are impossible to function without some resistant force.

TH
No, drop him to the ground and the wheels stop. Unless you pedal a lot harder.

You are so far off the rails it's not even funny. Try and figure out what is correct, don't try to justify wht you already believe to be correct.

There is always resistance, all you've done is change the Amount of resistance. Nothing else changed.

Search for some force diagrams and study them. I could draw the diagrams for both scenarios ypu describe and neither violates newtons third law. You can not draw me up a valid force diagram that violates that third law.


It's almost comical. In one breath you say that air is not enough resistance to push a bicycle off of, but in the next you say it is plenty to push a hundred thousand pound rocket off of. In fact, that's how you claim rockets work, so why can't a bicycle pedal through the air? Should be able to zip around just like a rocket, pushing off of all that air.

I don't know what else to say, there are plenty of controversial and counter intuitive topics in physics. These are not them. These are tried and true.

Thank God we aren't talking helicopters, those get really confusing. You might have us believe that they only fly through ground effect.

I mean, it is rocket science, but it's not rocket science. I want to debunk the spacebound tesla as much as anyone, but rockets not working in space is simply not it.

Rockets (and jet engines) generate thrust through a purely mechanical force, by accelerating a fluid (actually a gas, for jets that gas is atmosphere, rockets bring their own, in the fuel) in the opposite direction. Jet engines won't operate outside their atmospheric parameters. Rockets have no such practical limitation.

It IS the equivalent of throwing bowling balls out the back. I like the gun analogy best. It's a gun firing slowly. The gun is the rocket, the gunpowder is the fuel, and the bullet is the exhaust gases. The recoil is the launching/maneuvering force.
 
Last edited:

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
524
No, drop him to the ground and the wheels stop. Unless you pedal a lot harder.

You are so far off the rails it's not even funny. Try and figure out what is correct, don't try to justify wht you already believe to be correct.

There is always resistance, all you've done is change the Amount of resistance. Nothing else changed.

Search for some force diagrams and study them. I could draw the diagrams for both scenarios ypu describe and neither violates newtons third law. You can not draw me up a valid force diagram that violates that third law.


It's almost comical. In one breath you say that air is not enough resistance to push a bicycle off of, but in the next you say it is plenty to push a hundred thousand pound rocket off of. In fact, that's how you claim rockets work, so why can't a bicycle pedal through the air? Should be able to zip around just like a rocket, pushing off of all that air.

I don't know what else to say, there are plenty of controversial and counter intuitive topics in physics. These are not them. These are tried and true.

Thank God we aren't talking helicopters, those get really confusing.

I mean, it is rocket science, but it's not rocket science. I want to debunk the spacebound tesla as much as anyone, but rockets not working in space is simply not it.
The cyclist would move forward if he continued peddling. Obviously he wouldn't if you just dropped him and he didn't continue to apply the action of his legs.

What I'm finding hard to get my head around (maybe you can help) is we have a chain of events here.

Combustion which is ignition from oxidisation (action) and hot gasses leaving the combustion chamber (reaction) now this alone isn't enough to drive a car, airplane anything using this technology, it's just the start of the chain.

With a car in a spark ignition engine, the fuel is mixed with air and then inducted into the cylinder during the intake process. After the piston compresses the fuel-air mixture, the spark ignites it, causing combustion. The expansion of the combustion gases pushes the piston during the power stroke. This doesn’t cause the car to move forward.

Most car engines have 4 important piston stroke cycles that in turn move the crankshaft every engine stroke going to the flywheel that spins the torque converter that distributes the power evenly among the transmission that in turn drives the axle to the differential that makes the wheels spin.

So you can see that the combustion alone doesn’t drive the car. Surely it’s the same with a rocket, where does the resistance come in to play? Internal combustion wouldn’t have an effect on propelling a rocket.

I just can't comprehend how internal combustion can steer a vessel to an intended target without factoring in the next steps in the chain of events.

1546856873976.png


Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 12.25.40.png



We have no air resistance in a vacuum so newtons third doesn't apply, a vacuum would pull the hot gasses in every direction. Exiting the nozzle into infinite space thus causing no air resistance what so ever.

Where does the resistance come from to propel the vessel forward?

The air resistance generated inside the combustion chamber surely isn't impactful enough to guide a vessel with laser accuracy to an inteded target.

TH
 
Last edited:

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,349
The cyclist would move forward if he continued peddling. Obviously he wouldn't if you just dropped him and he didn't continue to apply the action of his legs.

What I'm finding hard to get my head around (maybe you can help) is we have a chain of events here.

Combustion which is ignition from oxidisation (action) and hot gasses leaving the combustion chamber (reaction) now this alone isn't enough to drive a car, airplane anything using this technology, it's just the start of the chain. The gasses would enter the nozzle and each individual molecule would

With a car in a spark ignition engine, the fuel is mixed with air and then inducted into the cylinder during the intake process. After the piston compresses the fuel-air mixture, the spark ignites it, causing combustion. The expansion of the combustion gases pushes the piston during the power stroke. This doesn’t cause the car to move forward.

Most car engines have 4 important piston stroke cycles that in turn move the crankshaft every engine stroke going to the flywheel that spins the torque converter that distributes the power evenly among the transmission that in turn drives the axle to the differential that makes the wheels spin.

So you can see that the combustion alone doesn’t drive the car. Surely it’s the same with a rocket, where does the resistance come in to play? Internal combustion wouldn’t have an effect on propelling a rocket.

I just can't comprehend how internal combustion can steer a vessel to an intended target without factoring in the next steps in the chain of events.

View attachment 14982

View attachment 14985


We have no air resistance in a vacuum so newtons third doesn't apply, a vacuum would pull the hot gasses in every direction. Exiting the nozzle into infinite space thus causing no air resistance what so ever.

Where does the resistance come from to propel the vessel forward?

The air resistance generated inside the combustion chamber surely isn't impactful enough to guide a vessel with laser accuracy to an inteded target.

TH
I think you're too hung up on this action reaction bit. It may be helpful to think of it as energy and force. Oxidation and combustion are essentially the same thing.

My point with the cyclist, is he would have to peddle much much harder on the ground, you have added the weight of himself and the bicycle to the resistance. Before it was just the resistance of the gears and rear wheel. Once he gets moving, drag starts to have an effect as well.

AS for rockets, the exhaust gases have already generated their thrust when they leave the nozzle. The energy comes from the pressure, which comes from the heat and the combustion. Before ANYTHING has moved, you have high pressure in the combustion chamber. Because that chamber has an opening, the exhaust gases start to move, converting pressure, into kinetic energy. This force has an equal and opposite effect on the rocket. In effect, to use your terminology, the exhaust gases push against the rocket. This is what the gases accelerate against, in what would probably be called the normal force in a force diagram. Dunno, it's been a while. Whatever you call the force, it comes from the energy stored as pressure. Think of that pressure as between the rocket and the gases. It pushes between them, and the small light gases go zipping away, and they big heavy rockets gets a little push. More pressure, more gases, and each bit of gas adds a little more kinetic energy to the rocket, until the force becomes unbalanced and the rocket starts to move.

There is no chain of air molecules transmitting force back to the rocket. There is no air bubble hoisting the rocket up. The gases are not bouncing off something then coming back at the rocket.

There is no way for escaping gas to turn, as it would need to, to come out perpendicular like in your diagram. It will go in a straight line, at angles formed by the opening and the nozzle. Beyond that, they cannot turn. (They will slow enough, relatively quickly to become more or less a cloud, while quickly may be very quick in this case, no where near as quick as the leaving rocket)

You can put a jet engine on a car, I've seen one do over 300mph in a quarter mile, they said it was an f16 engine, but I wouldnt know to be sure. Never seen a rocket on one. They are not exactly practical, to say nothing for cost efficiency. Heck, I saw one where a guy put a jet engine in a VW bug, in CALI no less. Found a loophole in the law, and it is (last i heard) still street legal.

An internal combustion engine is going to be much much more efficient.


Hope this helps, I don't explain very well, especially in text.
 

Top