Yes, Rockets CAN Fly in a Vacuum
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 фев 2018
- And for weekly Vintage Space episodes, don't forget to subscribe! / @amyshirateitel
Want to help make sure I can keep making Vintage Space? I'm not ablate accept SPONSORS! Here's a video that tells you how it works: • You can Sponsor Vintag...
And more even older space in my book, BREAKING THE CHAINS OF GRAVITY! You can order your copy on Amazon: bit.ly/astbtcog
Or get a signed hardcover edition on my website! www.amyshirateitel.com/store.html - I'M WAITING FOR BOOKS - SHIPPING TIMES ARE CURRENTLY SLOW :)
There's more info on my blog over at Discover, too: blogs.discovermagazine.com/vin...
My blog archives has lots of awesome olde timey space, too (and I'm looking for a new home for it, too!): www.popsci.com/blog-network/vi...
I've also got a PATREON PAGE! Want to listen to a Vintage Space Podcast or get awesome merch like t-shirts? Please consider becoming a patron! I've set up a Patreon account so I can raise funds to buy the gear I'll need to make an awesome podcast and also work with professionals to make better content all around. Any help is so hugely appreciated. / amyshirateitel
Connect on Facebook: / amyshirateitel
Google+: plus.google.com/u/0/+AmyShira...
Instagram: / astvintagespace
Twitter: / astvintagespace 
Наука
I love that you used a VINTAGE automobile in that illustration)
Andriy Vasylenko didn't think I would see you around here! Jajaja
Me too. That's an illustration of a 1959 Cadillac Coupe deVille. But I won't comment on how a car really has nothing at all to do with a rocket. Apples and oranges.
Didn't you notice the rocket fins on the back of the car? Also, the brake light are the shapes of rocket nozzles.
Sort of apples and oranges but Amy likes Vintage stuff and manged to get an old car in there. I say sort of apples and oranges because I do see some commonality. She is talking about vehicles and she is talking about burning fuel to propel those vehicles. It ain't much but hey, she is Canadian :-) I like her videos. You do too, eh?
it was the style of the 50s and early 60s for Cadillac.
Great presentation ! Now how do rockets work in space ?
Same as they do in the earth's atmosphere.
Brilliant response, just what I was thinking
They don't. how can they when a vaccum has no opposing forces to create centrifugal force? Cars have roads to roll on planes and jets have the air and it's slip streams to glide through but space has none of that hell how do you stop a ship in a vaccum? How do you chart a path? How do they turn? Rocket science is pump valve oxygen and gas how can a rocket work some were oxygen does not exist?
Your stuck in the thinking that you need something to push against. Just the stuff flying out the back is enough to push it.
@@Padawaneslayer9000 Maybe you didn't watch the same video I did. You actually answered the last one on your own haha.
You stop a ship by applying thrust retrograde (relative "backward"; relative being the opposite of where your ship's "forward" is) in space. But the ship will never really "stop" because it's constantly being pulled in by celestial bodies i.e. planets, moons, and larger asteroids. That's what orbiting means- being pulled in by something with a lot of mass.
You turn a ship by doing the same thing, facing relative "in" or "out" (radial and anti-radial). If you want to turn "upwards" (normal and anti-normal), it's the same process no matter what the desired direction is- applying thrust. That's how charts are pathed and that's how ships move. It's challenging to explain directions in space because everything is relative, hence the quotations around my spacial directions.
The last question is relatively simple to answer. Ships use liquid fuel and an oxidizing element (typically liquid oxygen) to create combustion in a controlled chamber. You can think of it like a balloon as she shows in the video. Only in that example, the air within the balloon acts as both the fuel and the oxidizing agent. Imagine a balloon in space but instead of there just being air in the balloon, there's liquid oxygen and liquid fuel, both in tanks of their own. Both of those liquids are pumped into and combined in a combustion chamber where the result is pulled into space by vacuum. That's where the thrust comes from!
There's so much information available about this, and it's a super interesting topic! I hope I've answered your questions. I most definitely don't know everything, but we shouldn't disregard the possibility because we don't want to learn about it!
- (Kerbal space program is a great simulation video game to learn about everything space-related!)
I love these videos but I can’t read the comments, the fact that we live in such a technologically advanced world and people don’t believe we’re capable of going to the Moon is dumbfounding, still this was well explained and actually more common sense than you’d think, thanks Amy :)
Exhaust doesn't move a car forward LMAO! It's the pistons on the crankshaft that move the gearbox and the wheels. As for a rocket in an infinite vacuum, the vacuum would suck up all the exhaust and not create forward motion. There's nothing to push against.
- "There's nothing to push against."
So according to YOU a crossbow fired into a vacuum would have no recoil?
Are you sure you thought that through?
Look into conservation of momentum..
Power shaft turns axle to move the wheel?
I've seen a flat earther trying to prove that rocket propulsion is impossible in vacuum by conducting an experiment where he was using a fan to try to blow away a piece of feather in vacuum. Feather wasn't blown away, therefore, rockets are impossible in space.
My mind was blown, though.
zorkan111 if you use a fan in a vacuum it wouldnt work because there isnt any air inside a vacuum
And a fan needs air to create so sort of wind
I... wut?
He said "I've SEEN a flat earther" not "I've BEEN" one.
Thats not the physics problem of a rocket. Sure they can operate in a vacuum but its 100% impossible for them to orbit a flat earth. I bet not one of you physics "experts" can show me the math of something orbiting a flat planet. Since this is impossible its obvious that the whole space program is a hoax.
Jeff K - good thing the Earth is shaped like a Malteser then, and not a Tiffin.
Haha. I have this fight with my wife all the time! Thanks for clearing it up for her! ;)
Oh and the exhaust exists the car through the exhaust valve with the exhaust stroke not because of the force of the power stroke. Your exhaust doesn't push the car forward, the power stroke turns Chemical energy into mechanical energy and that is transferred to the drive train to your wheels which in turn push or pull the car forward. The absolute minute pushing power that the exhaust might have would be nullified with the exhaust hangers. I know it's not the point of the video but your car analogy is a bit off.
a bit off 😁
THRUST Definition: a force acting perpendicular to a surface.
PRESSURE Definition: force over area equals pressure
NEWTON'S 3rd law. For every action there is an OPPOSITE reaction. HOWEVER, It goes on to state that you need two objects for an action. A MASS must act upon another MASS to generate an action. Force acts upon Mass to generate Thrust. Space has no Mass so no action can be taken to create thrust. You cant accelerate from a stop in space.
You gave the example of an inflated balloon which you left moved fastly, is just because there is air around and the air coming out of the balloon strikes that air in the environment which pushes back the air coming out from the balloon which pushes the balloon and the balloon runs fast but in case of space as by definition there no air in the space then how the gases coming out from the hind part of the rocket as a result of combustion inside the rocket, push anything to react in opposite direction as there is no air in space?
Secondly, a rocket travels millions of km from the earth then will that fuel not finish. If its utilised from one side travel then on return from where refilling is done.
In my view travel in space is not possible according to the available laws of motion.
Secondly let's suppose it possible by the ways you mentioned then how the rocket changes its direction and
Thirdly how it stops after reaching its destination?
Thanks
@@5yri5 So tell us how a rocket moves in air? How do air molecules push back against the rocket body to move it? Keep in mind that these air molecules are being blown backwards at very high speeds.
@@5yri5 - "Space has no Mass so no action can be taken to create thrust."
So according to YOU, the exhaust gas from a rocket has NO MASS?
A space shuttle main engine (SSME) consumes 500 kilograms of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen PER SECOND!
This creates PURE WATER at supersonic speeds.
How many kilograms MASS of pure water comes *out of the engine* PER SECOND?
Something else to point out is that once a rocket reaches outer space, it no longer needs fuel to keep going. Within the vacuum of space (without friction), the object will continue to travel in the same direction and at the same speed. At this point, more fuel can be burned to increase the speed or to change it's direction. I'm assuming that there is no diminishing returns when it comes to reaching higher speeds (i.e., you can continue to gain speed at the same rate regardless of current speed), but then it becomes a matter of needing fuel to also slow down once approaching the destination.
When I was watching an Apollo mission on tv with my grandmother in the 70's, she asked me "How does it fly without propellers?"
What did you say?
You saw it on tv so it must be true… nice story dis info bum ….
@@brietebank9582 what? He was just saying a funny story about how their grandmother didn’t know things could fly without propellers, where is the misinformation?
@@DiabolicalBiscuit you really believe the original comment. Sounds like bullshit
The true reply should have been neither work in space
**sees the balloon. Waits for you to release the balloon. Says "woohoo!" when the balloon is released. Sighs happily**
...needs to get out more.
*Ash-fault. Amy's Canadian is showing. :D*
Eh?
I caught that too. But I won't give her a hard time about it...have seen American kids spell it ASSFAULT.
Dsdcain... I cought that. I then looked to see if anybody mentioned it. Your comment was the first one I saw... LOL
As soon as I heard that, I IMMEDIATELY scrolled to the comments and sure enough!... haha
Amy, you really didn't answer the question you'd set up at the beginning.
What is it, exactly, that is the "equal and opposite" here? In other words, what is the thrust pushing against to drive the engine (and therefore everything that's attached to it) forward?
BTW, I have no idea where you were trying to go with the car analogy.
So.. If I fit a bigger exhaust to my car, will it go faster?
If your current exhaust is restricted or to small of an exhaust pipe, than yes it will go faster. Boy your a smart cookie, lol
@@georgesparks9206 She implied that, bright Spark
You should explain how a rocket steers into space !
Cheers !
Hahaha! I'd sure like to see this also!
lol..that would be interesting. Geniuses explain away.
Im not sure if you are trolling, geniuenly curious, or a flat earther trying to prove your little conspiracy.
They do the same thing to rotate as to move. Using liquid oxygen pumped into a small nozzle at a high velocity, they are able to rotate,
Tl;dr: RCS thrusters use liquid oxygen using newtons 3rd law to steer.
@@listopad09 No they don't.
You are far more patient with willful and intentional ignorance than I could ever be. I think you're just a better person, lol.
I sure agree with you infact my skin is not at all thick enlugh to even read the comments not directed toward me personaly. Suspect this might just be the reason Ms Amy has that one foto of her flipping double birds on her other uT channel????
Keep up thte good work Amy, un till I become prefect, I shure will try my hardest not to expect others to be perfect. However, I must confess, I am having a giant problem accepting all Donnies imperfections but than a again, he is special....... >^..^
John, my thoughts exactly. In fact I made that very comment to my girlfriend as we watched another great video from Amy.
I actually scrolled down to the comments to say just that. Well done Amy! Thanks for getting science further out into the world, we're all better for it.
It can make you want to scream when people ask this or "why when you jump doesn't the Earth whizz beneath you?"
Except Galileo and Newton are considered two of the greatest geniuses ever to walk the Earth and it isn't because they just stated the obvious. The mistaken views of the Greeks that they overturned didn't come from idiots. The principle of relativity and the laws of motion are counterintuitive. The thing to get cross about is the levels of education...
Wait, people actually question Newton's laws without looking them up? And also ask where the oxidizer is... on an f-ing rocket? I just don't have the patience for that level of crazy.
One could potentially even propel one selves in space using farts. I already sent out the patent. I call it the Chili Drive™.
Topplethepyramid give me 5 pounds of beans.
#fartJokesHunter
Toppelethepyramid... Some Apollo astronauts actually mentioned that, because there was a still a bit of hydrogen dissolved in their drinking water after it came from the fuel cells.
What's your power source?
Somebody send this experiment design to the ISS!
Unless they already tested it. (I don't think the Apollo crew documented those incidents with video)
Cars don't get pushed by their exhaust. Using that logic, a semi with its vertical stacks would just be pushed down harder to the ground. The explosion pushes a piston down which in turn spins a crankshaft.
So glad I found this channel. Thanks!
Good explanation... I would add that the shape of the engine bell on a rocket is an important part of this. The expanding gasses inside that enclosed area exert the outward force in all directions. Because the engine is bell shaped, as the gas expands, it exerts that sideways force that pushes against the bell and the rocket. :)
Thank you. I knew there was something missing. Perfect.
Now do it in a vacuum
The balloon moves because the tension in the balloon material pushes the air out of the nozzle, when that air hits the surrounding air it creates the pushback to move the actual balloon, but in a vacuum, there is no air to resist the output from the balloon, the air releases without any force. You need to release the balloon in a vacuum if your analogy is to hold any water
LDM design - you CLAIM that "there is nothing to push off of" in the vacuum of space.
But there IS! The rocket takes MASS with it to space to push on!
If I fired a crossbow into a vacuum would there be a recoil force? Yes or No?
The answer is YES. This is because any machine that PUSHES ON MASS, feels a recoil force. PERIOD.
A rocket expels the MASS of the rocket exhaust gas (Gas DOES have MASS BTW) and the rocket feels the recoil force from pushing on that mass.
Rockets DO NOT "Push on the air behind the rocket".
If THAT were the case, then no rocket (or aircraft for that matter) could ever fly faster than the speed of sound.
Rockets (and even Jet Engines) are MASS DRIVERS.
They push on the mass while STILL IN THE ENGINE.
What happens AFTER the mass leaves the engine is irrelevant.
@DeusVult1527 Here is an example for you:
A Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) expels 500 kilograms (this is MASS) of PURE WATER at MACH EIGHT!
It ACCELERATES this water from a standstill (velocity of ZERO with respect to the rocket) to MACH EIGHT (2500 meters per second) in about TEN FEET!
It does this every second.
Now tell me that ANY MACHINE can ACCELERATE 500 kilograms mass from a velocity of ZERO to a velocity of 2500 m/s WITHOUT FEELING RECOIL!
Tell me a machine can accelerate MASS without feeling any kind of mechanical recoil.
Give it a try and go ahead and tell me that genius!
@DeusVult1527 so AGAIN, you think that a machine can ACCELERATE 500 kilograms of water to mach eight without feeling any recoil.
Say it, I want to hear you say that.
@DeusVult1527 oh and just FYI: the company I work for tests hydrazine thrusters IN A VACUUM (here on earth) and we verify that they produce the thrust predicted by the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. We then put them in spacecraft, launch them to space, and test them there again. You apparently do not realize that the Rocket Equation predicts that rocket propulsion is MORE EFFICIENT IN A VACUUM. Then you are apparently not aware that we have been TESTING the Rocket equation for over 100 years, genius! I literally build, test, launch, and operate earth orbiting and deep space spacecraft as my job, and I have been doing that for longer than you have been alive.
@DeusVult1527 here are three simple physics questions that most "science deniers" flat out REFUSE to answer, because answering truthfully, proves them wrong. Let's see if you run like a coward like the rest.
When a rocket engine is running:
1-does the exhaust gas get ACCELERATED? (does it change VELOCITY as it exits the nozzle?). Yes or no?
2- does the exhaust gas have MASS? yes or no?
3-can MASS be ACCELERATED without a FORCE? (Or does ACCELERATION *REQUIRE* a FORCE?)
Now let's see if you answer or run away like the physics denying morons
I'm curious as to how such a young (and quite attractive) lady is interested in America's space history. I'm watching these videos and am somewhat flabbergasted....I grew up in this era, built all the rocket models as a kid in the '60's, followed each Apollo mission with intense interest.....yet with each of Amy's videos, I am learning something new. This is amazingly refreshing and I have yet to meet anyone with this level of knowledge regarding our time in space. Please keep up the outstanding presentations and thank you for producing them on RUclips!
Im twelve, i know pretty much how a rocket engine works.
So im not really suprised that a 18-25 year old lady knows how newtons third law works.
It's a shame that our society has "reserved" science for old men, and that comments like this (relating gender to interests) should even occur. Please consider commenting on the attractiveness of all RUclipsrs in your comments. Let's grow up a bit, shall we.
@@Poundertruth A is the rocket, B is the propellant that is burnt and turns into hot-hot gas.
Just watched your story video about how you got started with all of this. Good work you never give up. I'm looking forward to reading your book
The earth is Flat and real scientific physics debunk an INFINITE and EXPANDING VACUUM UNIVERSE!!
Amy how about a video on all of the exotic metal alloys used in the space program, and why they were (are) used? Thanks and keep up the GREAT work.
Yes, would love to see that too. I’ve always been interested in what exact materials can withstand those kind of extreme temperatures and last for such a long time without constant maintenance. You’d figure with thousands of satellites up in space there would be a high demand for Astronaut/repair personnel.
Who does all the maintenance for the thousands of satellites + the space station?
titanium, because it is heat resistant and can be used multiple times without failures.
Titanium is unfortunately far too reactive to be used at very high temperatures(*) and is dangerous in contact with pure oxygen, it is light and strong though. Nickel superalloys rule for high temperature metal parts, but much of the art of jet and rocket motor design is ensuring there is enough cooling to stop the metal parts melting immediately. Anything touching a flame has to be ceramic, but its best if nothing touches the flame except cooling gasses. In these contexts 900C air might be a cooling gas...
(*) In modern turbofan engines the last stage of the compressor runs too hot for titanium to be safe, that's before the flame even!
@@Samuelfish2k the space station crew repairs the space station,
And the satelittes just burn up in the athmosphere on reentry.
@@Lillstisse661 🤣"burn up on reentry " but don't burn up while being in the 4000° thermosphere the whole time😭
The exhaust does NOT propel a car down a road....its the explosion that moves the piston which turns the crank shaft that turns the wheel that is in full contact with a road hence movement.....
The exhaust is too small and slow in a car to propel it forward.
It has nothing to do with any rocket engine, she was very clear they work differently
Yeah she kinda messed that up. Also she implied the force of the explosion in the power stroke forces the exhaust out. The exhaust stroke does that haha.
Amy is the BEST communicator of these very complex concepts since CARL SAGAN. (And she's doing it in much smaller segments than HE did.) BRAVA!
My youtube feed has been filled lately with flat-earthers and people claiming the moon landings were fake. It's really nice to see videos from someone intelligent and knowledgeable. Those other dopes are so tiring. I love a woman with a brain and she's not afraid to use it.
the biggest misconception is the person in this movie 😂
It's so sad that so many people didn't pay attention in elementary school science class that you have to explain this.
I do completely agree, I cannot even grasp how one with absolutely basic education might not understand basic principles underlying Newtonian physics :/
bobobobinalong Internet HIGH-FIVE! You and me both. WTH? I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees this.
That's the US education system at work! Go Merica!
Oh wow
@Jarod The US does not hold the monopoly on people who don't understand the basics of nature. So knock it off. Fans of this channel are global.
I once used newtons law as a defense for my cars exhaust system.
Mufflers and baffles disrupt the engines exhaust system Scavenging exhaust pulses from my cylinders, thus reduces my exhaust velocity. So my open pipes are meant to use the cars exhaust to help propel my car thus making my car more efficient.
It didn’t work. Full fine.
0:46 Wait, what?? so your're saying cars move because of the combusted air and fuel coming out from the exhaust pipe?? Wtf
Went right back to 0:46 & my god I was shocked. Not only is it pointless to mention the cars exhaust, she then says we have foward monentum because we are ALSO, using friction on the ground.
She's dumb enough to be on the ISS with idiots like Don Pettit & his buddy. Imagine 3 actor nots who can't even read & pronounce whilst? (NASAS Big lie, can you see stars from space).
...who the hell really thinks rockets dont work in space
It shows you just how poor American education really is.
JerechoNC flat earthers. They say it all the time...
Trolls
Flat earthers deny Newtons 3rd law, therefore, conclude that rockets are impossible in space.
Reg Barlow swims. But no one really believes in terrys disc. I mean ancient indians did
I've had actual conversations with moon hoax believers that have gone like this:
Them: Rockets can't work in a vacuum because there's no air for the rocket to propel itself against.
Me: You're wrong because (abridged from my lengthy explanations about Newton's 3rd Law)...
Them: I have performed experiments that prove they can't work in a vacuum.
Me: I'd like to see that because if you have, you'll have completely re-written what we know about physics. It could even make your name, get you awards and forever you'll be known as the guy who proved rocketry in space wrong.
Them: I perform my experiments purely for my own personal research and don't share them.
Me: Ooooooookaaaayyyyyyy.
Hahah, the rocket were fill with oxygen tank and gasoline tank that why it can fly. There no oxygen in space so there need oxygem for the gasoline to burn and create thrust.
ruclips.net/video/CVg4ddLE0kw/видео.html
@Marco Creen i though you know what i mean by (oxygen tank)
O oh, sorry it almost like you said it to me cause i write in my comment there oxygen tank in space and that why rolet can fly in space
Rhubba no it's because you can't ignite fuel in space.
And their space bound "craft" couldn't carry enough oxygen to keep moving.
I love your videos they are so well put together and the content is as always fascinating.
Has an astronaut ever injured themselves in space and is it true that they had to have their appendix removed?
Thank you! You are amazing!! I have a question, SaturnV works with kerosene and oxigen in the first stage and hydrogen in the second and third, why this kind of choice? The kerosene had a more power at 0 level?
Kerosene is much denser. The tanks in the first stage would have to be bigger and still carry the weight of the upper stages if it used hydrogen. Also, what you need leaving the ground is the most thrust you can get. The lower specific impulse (exhaust velocity) of kerosene means you throw out more material slower to generate the same thrust than with hydrogen.
Higher specific impulse is great, but since kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, power goes up much faster, so the kerosene engine give you more thrust for a given energy per second. Later on, when you're trying to speed up to orbital velocity, you need all the specific impulse you cn get, so hydrogen is great for upper stages.
The Russians didn't get to the Moon because they didn't have hydrogen-fueled engines, so their first stage had to be gigantic even for a tiny two-man spacecraft.
Karl Storie thank you!
No, no, no. The balloon is flying off because the air inside the balloon is released creating a high pressure area at the nozzle when it meets the air outside the baloon.
No it moves forward because it is pushing MASS out the back and feeling a RECOIL force.
Recoil works in a vacuum too.
Same thing with a rocket. High pressure at nozzle because no pressure outside(vacuum).
At minute 3:04 you said "literally burning the oxygen". In both the internal combustion engines and rockets oxygen is not burned at all. Oxygen is the oxidizer that allows the flammable or combustible material to burn with more energy.
Oscar Lopez if they fail enough at elementary science do you think they would have a clue about middle school science?
Amy is very smart. I was just making a point so her viewers understand and don't get that fact confused.
As I read it, both oxygen and the fuel are 'burning'. They are both participating the reaction. You can, for example, inject oxygen into a room filled with flammable gas and get a small flame at the point of entry.
CorwynGC Your statement is incorrect. Oxygen is not a flammable gas. It doesn't burn, but rather aid in the combustion process by oxidizing the material or substance on fire. Materials that in normal conditions are non-flammable can burn in an oxygen rich environment. But oxygen by itself won't burn or explode. Whatever heat or flame source introduced in an oxygen rich environment will burn violently but the oxygen itself won't catch on fire.
+Oscar Lopez I'm sorry... what? By that logic rocket fuel and gasoline are non-flammable because they cannot burn in the absence of oxygen. Oxygen is literally a required fuel source for fire. Both oxygen and rocket fuel/gasoline must combine to create the flame. Rocket fuel and gasoline by themselves will not burn or explode either.
I have no idea why you're not more popular. I've been addicted to your channel for a week now.
I have literally just discovered this channel, but i already like it. Subbed and liked. :D
Why so many negative comments? I don't see anything wrong with this video, and who actually cares about how she pronounces asphalt? Or what she used as an analogy?
VPNT true.. Many people would see 1 fault instead of appreciating the amazing information she's providing... I like her video... A pretty girl with a brain...
wow creepy
Her car analogy was kinda silly. A better analogy would have been a jet engine. Cars don't use combustion to generate thrust. They use it to generate motion which is then transferred to the wheels which use friction to push and/or pull the car forward. A jet engine, on the other hand, uses combustion to generate thrust via the turbine, much more akin to the way a rocket functions. Just my thoughts.
She stated clearly that the car moves because the wheels push backward on the road and the road pushes the car forward. Shes contrasting that with the fact that rockets don't push back on anything so they don't require air.
@@JohnVJay So rockets don't push against anything, they just move on their own?
Hi Amy, I just found your channel recently and I am extremely impressed with how well you put your thoughts and knowledge together to make this incredible channel. I’ve been following space flight and the science behind it since I was little and I’m 33 now. You have increased my knowledge of so many things from other space programs to specific events that happened. I had no idea about many of the events you’ve covered and I’ve learned a lot from you. I look forward to future videos and I hope you continue to make them. Thank you for putting the time and effort into the videos. You do an outstanding job at it, it really shows.
thanks im rlly into this kind of stuff and were learning about space and space crafts ( we did flight thanks for the refresh ) and weirdly im the only girl or even person in my class to understand half of this tysmmmm
I don't know if you have covered this before, but exactly how did the Lunar Module and Command Module power source work?
I under stand that they got drinking water and breathing O2 from them, is that correct?
The lunar module only had batteries. They originally designed it to use fuel cells (which is what you were describing). The CSM had fuel cells. But, the scrapped the idea of fuel cells for the LEM fairly early in the project, in favor of the simplicity and reliability of batteries.
Please do a video on the astronaut's experiences in the CMD module while the others are on the moon's surface. I think that would be interesting.
yep
Very true, someone has to keep the lights on upstairs. Very underappreciated role, that.
+1
It's à shame thow, that there are only CGI's and animations showing rockets "flying" in space...
Very nice blaw blaw
Someone's never bothered to look at the videos from the public spaceflight archives from the 1960s.
There are now over a HUNDRED videos of SpaceX rockets in space. I was part of the launch team that launched the IXPE space telescope just a couple weeks ago. Lookup that video.
Everything you see on your computer screen is a "CGI", digital image doesn't always mean "unreal". Film-cameras are almost extinct.
So if I push against my own hand, I can fly to the MOON!
This plan cannot fail!
You imply that is silly but in practice you could. You would first have to detach your hand from your body (or push it in a way that caused it to become detached) and push it very, very hard (well beyond anything your muscles could achieve, and likely beyond what a small atomic bomb could manage), and you would not survive the near instantaneous acceleration necessary, but propulsion by pushing a (any) mass (away) is precisely the point.
@@rjcornford Exactly! That is why rockets can't move in space. Because rockets are silly.
Thank you for another great video. Very well explained.
Also, for those inclined towards the spectacularly nuclear, look up Project Orion... That project worked along the same principles. Only reason they shelved it? A ban on Rainbow bombs... Man, the fifties and sixties. If it werent for the environmental issues, you guys had some pretty wild ideas!
jmalmsten For more fun, look up the dimensions of the General Atomics library building in La Jolla, CA. It's exactly the same shape and size of the Orion pusher plate.
Hey amy check out ksp's new update and the new dlc which covers vintage space stuff literally!
FYI... im finally seeing your content in my youtube feed again after more then a year of not seeing anything.
I love your channel!! So much cool stuff!
I noticed the alcohol in the background. Now I know how many bottles of liqueur it takes to dye my hair purple and get tattoos.
Another way to think of it without (directly) invoking Newton is to envision an exploding grenade in space. The gases from the explosion expand outward more or less equally in all directions, flinging the grenade fragments in all directions as well. Now take away half of the grenade shell. The gases still push outward in all directions, but meet nothing to push where the housing has been removed, so they just escape out into space. But they also push against the remaining shell of the grenade, sending it on its merry way. A rocket engine is just a grenade with half of the casing removed. Well, a little more refined than that, but you get the picture.
Indeed. Nod to the original Orion project from the 1950s where the concept was to explode nuclear bombs behind the spacecraft and use the shockwave to push it forward: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
(NB: *not* the current, ongoing, Orion Spacecraft project: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) )
@@Braden-York You were making sense until you mentioned a "flat earther." What the hell, man? What does flat earth theory have to do with rocket thrust?
Another way to think of it ? How much slower thrust(or expended fuel ) would one need to impede faster thrust (expending fuel ) to accelerate a 4 ton object in a almost perfect vacuum let say 5 km per second (high earth orbit gravity) Answer almost infinite The volume/mass of fuel would need to collide with the expended energy simultaneously because in a vacuum the mass/volume of expended fuel would not lose momentum fast enough to propel a 5lb object. Basically moving a rocket in a vacuum would be time travel
grenade will not work .................it needs oxygen to fire ................smarty pants .................you're in a vacuum of space ....................will an airplane wing generate lift in a vacuum ?.....................NO IT WILL NOT .
@@Braden-York REPARATIONS FOR ALL TAX DOLLARS WASTED ON ..........................................SPACE SHIT !!!!
I am confused, please help me out with this.
When I ride my bike with rear wheel not touching the ground, I do not move regardless how much force I put to the paddles. I apply action but no reaction is observed. This change when wheel touch the road...
Or, when I shadow boxing in the air, regardless the force I put to exercise no equal and opposite force is observed by me, but when I hit the punching bag I feel the bag punching me back.
It looks like air does not care about the Third Newton Law of action and reaction like road or punching bag!
Don't know if this is true but I have heard an alternative explanation that rockets move because the continuous explosion within the rocket bell pushes atoms in all directions but the atoms that are moving up towards the top of the bell impact against the bell, imparting their momentum to the rocket itself.
One of the cutest examples of Newton's 3rd Law was from Pixar's WALL-E when the plucky little robot used a fire extinguisher as a thruster after he was ejected into space.
Richard Mattingly Yeah that's proof enough for me, a cartoon in space. Case closed.
R Cook
Are you well? You sound triggered.
@@AmbarGriss are YOU well?? You sound triggered off a (well-deserved) snarky comment responding to a stupid comment about an animated robot in space.
Same in GRAVITY movie
Wouldn't work
Can astronauts vaccum in a vacuum?🤔
Catwow YOOO my mind is blown
Well now, wouldn't THAT suck!
That depends what you define vacuum and vacuuming as. Technically there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. A vacuum is just a place that has a very low amount of molecules in it. And you might be able to create a more perfect vacuum next to a place with a more "regular" vacuum thereby creating suction. TLDR; Yes, you can vacuum in a vacuum.
they have vacuum cleaner on iss
If you ask the right question, you get the right anwer:
1) remove air:
there are still atoms in space, although far and wide apart. Even the removal of a single atom can be thought of as more vacumer than vacuum. Although, you'ld have to have a serious OCD to go for that extra atom.
2) remove dust.
Moon has quite some dust, called moondust, which is sitting there in an almost vacuum. The conventional means to remove the dust, by lowering airpressure would not work. But you can still create a pressure zone, throwing up alot of dust, which can be vacuumed. Ofc, you'ld rather do this in a special (mobile) chamber , and not in open "vacuum", to improve efficiency. Or you could use modern tools that work great in vacuum, like a duster and pan.
If there is no air in space I.e vacuum,then how thrusts from rocket fuel will help it move forward? I mean against whom is the thrust pushing against if the space is vacuum?
The rocket is accelerated because the exhaust is accelerated in the opposite direction.
At the absolute basic level, rockets rely on simple conservation of momentum.
Is it safe to say that the expanding gas itself in the thruster is pushing the rocket forward while most of the gas escapes from behind?
That would violate Newtons first law. But NASA are degenerates anyway & hate the laws of physics 😂
I know the space shuttle isn't your thing, but I was wondering if you could explain why the shuttle used solid fuel boosters rather than ones with liquid propellants. This perplexes me, as liquid fuels deliver greater specific impulse.
I believe it had something to do with simplicity and reliability.
Several reasons;
Solid fuel is cheaper per booster but has a high cost to set up production, as ICBM production was decreaseing thanks to programs such as START this was a political choice to support american solid booster companies as they have strategic importantance (solid fuel boosters can be stored in silos for long periods of time, while liquid boosters this is more complex due to boil off and corrosion).
Anouther reason is that specific impulse for first stages has less of an affect on total mass than later stages as the increase in mass to get the same Impulse only affects that first stage (compared to a second stage where the increased mass means a larger first stage to lift the greater mass) so the moderate diffrence in impulse doesn't result in a massive diffrence in mass.
In addition the The extra mass and complexity of a liquid fuel system just isn't worth it compared to the simplicity of solids. The dry mass (plumbing, tanks, and engine) of a liquid booster is greater than a solid of similar size, and solid fuels are typically denser than liquid fuels so that is further compounded.
Kerbal Rocketry
Thanks!
When a rocket first launches off of the pad, specific impulse isn't quite as important as thrust to weight ratio. SRB's were chosen for the shuttle because of their simplicity and reliability, but also because they can kick out a lot more thrust for their weight than pretty much any liquid engine-powered booster. Overcoming the pull of gravity, as well as wind resistance, eats a rocket's performance during the first minute of flight, so a solid rocket motor provides that raw power on the cheap. In the later phases of ascent, when the vehicle is moving horizontally and out of the atmosphere, that's when specific impulse counts the most, because your horizontal speed is so high that gravity losses become negligible, thus the primary role of the engine is to gain as much speed as possible, using as little fuel as possible.
It's mostly because of losses due to gravity. SRBs have a really good TWR meaning that while they're inefficient, more of that inefficient thrust is going towards accelerating and less towards just fighting gravity. An rp1+lox rocket with a TWR of 1.1 and isp of 350 is a lot less efficient during ascent than an SRB with an isp of 200 and a TWR of 2.
I always think of a rocket engine as a pressure vessel. Gas is pushing in all directions on the walls of the engine, but not on the bottom because there is no bottom.
True, but it's more complicated than that. The amount of thrust depends on the mass and acceleration of the ejected fuel. F=ma Which also works in the opposite direction to accelerate the rocket. So the acceleration of the rocket is dependent on its remaining mass divided by the amount of force being generated.
My3dviews... All these things are true of course, but in essence it all comes down to pressure difference. If you have a one ton rocket You will need at least more than one ton pressure difference between the exhaust and top of the chamber (not including the engine bell) . Of course lots of external factors come in to play how easy or difficult it is to maintain that pressure difference.
_I always think of a rocket engine as a pressure vessel. Gas is pushing in all directions on the walls of the engine, but not on the bottom because there is no bottom._ -- This is a very good way to think about it! It most clearly shows the *mechanism* of where the *force* comes from.
_The amount of thrust depends on the mass and acceleration of the ejected fuel._ -- this is the the consequence of the above. The pressure at the top of the combustion chamber that pushes the rocket up, is pushing the combusting fuel down, and causes it to accelerate. The pressure is the spring that pushes the rocket and exhaust apart. Conservation of momentum is of course fundamental, but it does not clearly show the mechanism of what really pushes the rocket forward.
Right, I wasn't disagreeing with your statement, just adding to it.
@@blindbrick thrust is measured in pounds of force and it is simply that the thrust force in pounds needs to be greater than the weight of the rocket to get the rocket to move. If one wants to get into orbit, then the thrust force has to be much greater than the weight of the rocket. The shuttle created about 1.2 million pounds of thrust.
Because of the rocket nozzles circular shape, it's able to build an internal pressure due to molecular build up which is the reason molecules escape faster than the speed they're released into the chamber. This internal pressure is the reason rockets can still move itself forward. If the nozzle was shaped only with the bell end and not the spherical portion, it could not create the thrust nor the speed to reach outer space due to the lack of an internal pressure.
Amy Shira-Teitel, answering the internet's dumbest questions in a truly professional manner. Much better than I would've done haha.
Amy, don't forget the hypergolic rocket engines that need no igniter/spark plug! :) The Titan II and the LM used Aerozine 50 fuel and (di)nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer, which combust as soon as they mix, providing thrust.
Christopher U.S. Smith Technically, they have an “igniter” (really: “a source of ignition”) as a hypergolic mixture, it is just a chemical auto-igniter. Even monopropellants have a “source of ignition” in the form of a metallic catalyst. Essentially, to continue the automotive analogy, hypergolic fueled rockets are akin to Diesel engines, wherein the fuel and oxidizer are mixed under conditions to promote auto-ignition.
detritus23 Everything I've ever read/heard on hypergolics say they are used so no external spark is required. Also, Diesel engines do have an igniter. It's called a glow plug, which ignites the compressed fuel.
Christopher U.S. Smith If I may respectfully put my two cents worth in,
Wouldnt the exposure of chemical A to chemical B be the ignition source?
Just asking.
abc def She's talking about where an external ignition source is used, which is not required for chemicals that combust when mixed (which A-50 and NTO do). All they need is an inert gas to pressurize the supply lines (like the helium used in the LM).
The activation energy of the chemical reaction is less than the average thermal energy of the reactants. That's where the ignition source comes from.
For those who are unsure of the inner workings of an automotive engine, I would just like to clarify that in most all cases the explosion is thrusting a piston downward. Usually there is more than one piston. These pistons push what is called a crankshaft in a circular motion and this "cranking" motion is eventually translated to your wheels by your transmission.
The exhaust gasses are not pushed out by the explosion itself but rather by the piston as the piston travels upward again.
I'm sure it was just abbreviated in the video for the sake of brevity, but I thought it might be hard to follow or misleading to some viewers.
I didn't like the way she used the car analogy and came straight down to the comments before I watched any further and lo and behold, you already did it for me.....thank you! You were at the top of the list too...beauty!
TY Amy. Pleasant and insightful and humble. Your clearly stated not overly technical comments are good. Stay sweet and lovely. M.
Hi Amy, enjoy your videos. Thanks for doing this focus. Maybe you have done this or it isn't your interest, but ever thought about doing a vid on the evolution of spacesuits?
jim leblanc was the only person with whom they tested the space suit in a vacuum environnement and it failed hard. Today spaceX suit are made by a mexican hollywood designer. You are being lied to.
My question is in vaccume where the reaction force comes from?
Review: Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Google is your friend.
@@darklight2.1 lol dude sounds like you also dont know.
@@anikhossain6451 So, either you couldn't be bothered to learn how the laws of motion apply to rockets, or you tried, didn't understand the explanation and were embarrassed to admit it-so you posted something silly.
Not very productive either way-you should try harder.
Have you taken any physics courses? These are basic principles, perhaps about junior high level (12-14 years of age) in the U.S.
Education eradicates ignorance.
@@darklight2.1 I didn't come to this video randomly. I was searching a lot about this.
I am quite proficient in Newtonian physics. Physics wasn't my major but I did 3 classes in college.
If you also dont know the answer dont tell people to Google it cause maybe they did.
If you punch a wall it will hurt you you because of the reaction force from the wall (3rd law). But in space it's all vaccume so where is this reaction force coming from? This is what I cant find anywhere.
I am a guy who's not shy to admit if I dont know something. But you my frd also dont know and acting like you know. If you can contribute then please reply or dont waste my time.
@@anikhossain6451
_" I was searching a lot about this."_
Did you try searching for "how do rockets work in space" or "how does thrust work in a vacuum"?
_"I am quite proficient in Newtonian physics. "_
If you were, you would already know the answer to your own question. As I said, this is junior high level introductory physics.
_"But in space it's all vaccume so where is this reaction force coming from?"_
See above. Clearly you don't understand the third law and it's implications. Your own statements are contradictory-it's one or the other, it cannot be both.
_"..dont waste my time."_
The only person wasting your time here is you. Quit whining and being lazy, pick up a book and do some reading. Nobody owes you any answers-if you are really curious, get off your ass and do your own work.
By the way, if you took 3 college level physics classes and never got an introduction to basic Newtonian physics, then you should go get your money back.
However, as I find that extremely unlikely, the more likely assumption is that you are simply lying.
Good luck-you're going to need it.
it's like this... a rocket moves through space for the same reason a rifle recoils against your shoulder. the rifle projects lead at 0 degress and recoils at 180 degrees. the rocket projects gas molecules at 0 degrees and recoils at 180 degrees.
the fact that the rifle throws molecules in a solid form and the rocket throws molecules in a gasseous form is irrelevant because mass is mass in bith cases.
this idea that a million pound rocket "pushes against" air to move is just wrong wrong wrong.
Great video.
Have you ever done one explaining the issue with F1 engines oscillation problem in early launches? If I missed it, please link or steer me to it. Thanks.
I had no clue that the exhaust pushes my car forward. I guess my mechanic has been cheating me talking about pistons and gears and other mechanical nonsense :D
Did you actually watch the video?
Found your channel approximately 12 hours ago can't seem to get enough I love this learning things that I never knew before and I grew up during that time I was 6 years old watching a black and white TV when the moon landing occurred I've been a student of science my whole life and I'm thrilled to continue learning from your videos I follow you on Facebook Google Plus and here on RUclips thank you for all that you do.
How the reaction force generate in space
By expelling mass of gasses at high speeds, exactly like in atmosphere. Newton 3rd law of motion.
well if the particles that come out of the thruster don't meet any resistance (like air would provide) there is nothing to push you away from. I'd like to see the propulsion in vacuum...
Can the balloon also move forward in vacume ?
As for air: Trust augmentation is actually a thing. People have suggested putting a sleeve around the rocket so in thick atmosphere, air could be scooped up, be heated by the exhaust, expand and add to the thrust by ejecting more mass for the same power.
When designing the N-1, Korolev originally thought they could get by with just the 24 engines in the outer ring. They were supposed to have much shorter nozzles and expand against an inside skirt, making an aerospike arrangement. Air was going to flow down the central plenum and mix with the exhaust for thrust augmentation. That would have been way more than 50 years ahead of its time, because here it is 50 years later and nothing with an aerospike or thrust augmentation has ever flown.
You can't even spell thrust augmentation
It’s really just conservation of momentum. A rocket doesn’t have to use combustion to get liftoff, it’s really just about throwing mass in the opposite direction, be it burning gas, air, or ions. It’s eqivalent to you standing on a skateboard and throwing something heavy away from you. That’s also a type of thrust, just like a rocket.
A water rocket is a great example of that too.
Sure, likely those Olympic Javelin or Shot Put throwers do not stand on the skateboard or otherwise thew will be blown in the opposite direction of throw!
ruclips.net/video/e2e_VbAjx5g/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/_G426RqhAQA/видео.html
A simple example is if you and I are floating in space motionless relative to each other and I throw a ball towards you, I begin moving away from you.
Which is probably for the best because i'd be pretty pissed off at you if that ball hit me.
Haha good point.
A more relate-able example is how when you step off a boat, it begins to drift backwards. Same principle in action.
Good example with the boat, Nisheeth Pandey :D
Yep yep.
I enjoyed the video but I have another question. If there is an equal and opposite reaction in space, then doesn't the thrust from the engine create a (space quake) in time?
Nope.
You experience equal and opposite reactions everywhere every day. Simply by standing on the ground, the ground is creating a force to resist the force caused by your weight.
Her automobile example gets a little confusing because she does talk about thrust from the exhaust, but then she says that's not how a car works.
- I think what she means is if you turn your car on there is some thrust because exhaust goes out the tail pipe. True. -
- However if your exhaust came out with the equivalent of 10 pounds of thrust, or 20, or even a ridiculously high 100 pounds, even if your car is in neutral it's not enough to move a 2000 pound car.
- what happens in a car is the gasoline explodes inside your engine, pushing pistons which turn a crankshaft, which then turns gears which turn the tires and the tires literally push the car.
- So perhaps people think rockets also move by pushing something, like air.
- That is false.
- Rockets fly by action/reaction. The fuel enters the engine, it literally explodes, part of the energy pushes the exhaust one direction (action), but the rest of the energy pushes the rocket up (reaction).
Newton's third law is required just to walk forward. I push on the ground back, it pushes me forward. Without it I'd be a banana peel joke.
Gravity is not 3rd law.
@Nature and Physics Without gravity, that car would have no traction, So not a good comparison, Got it? It wouldn't go anywhere
as a salesperson you realize that you can tell ppl just about anything if you say it with confidence ppl will believe it no matter how rubbish it is. Thats what this girl is doing lol she has no idea what she is talking about and is dead wrong.
Really?
So how do rockets maneuver in space?
I'm sure that you have an interesting explanation.
Well, for flatters like you sure, any con man can make you feel special telling you that people aren’t as smart as you.
Those of us with an education can easily see the moronic nature of flatter claims.
what happens if u put ur hand in the exhaust of an ion engine? is it instant cancer? does ur hand burn away?
I am terrified that this is another Airplane on a Conveyor Belt argument that you're trying so eloquently to settle.
It is the same as with airplanes. Both propeller and jet propulsion works by throwing air backwards, not by pressure from the air behind the engine.
the propeller works as a rotating wing causing unequal pressure in front of it (lesser) and more behind. the jet has more pressure at the front of the combustion chamber and less at the rear which causes forward thrust. otherwise a fan would work if it was just throwing air.
Nope, it is NOT a question of pressure, but of mass. It needs to move a lot of air at a high speed, in exactly the same way as a rocket engine, which has the mass in the fuel and oxidizer tanks, need to expel a lot of high speed exhaust. Both work excellently in low air pressure, in fact better as when higher pressure gives a lot of air resistance.
If there is more pressure at the front than the back, the plane should move towards the low pressure, not the high.
Pressure isn't what propels the plane, the mass of air is.
while its true that a jet and a prop move air, that's why you can be knocked over by being on the backside of them, the big effect of the prop is the Bernoulli effect so it moves forward like a screw through the air and the jet inside its combustion chamber creates pressure equally on all sides but the lack of resistance on the rear due to the open exhaust means no pressure to balance the pressure at the front. ergo forward thrust.
It just appears that way but remember newtons third law of motion about equal and opposite reaction. there is pressure at the front of the combustion chamber and nothing at the back to balance it so the reaction is to move away from the pressure in the forward direction. Whittle, who invented the jet in Great Britain named his company "Reaction Jets Limited" just for that reason.
Please demonstrate, vacuum chamber and rocket please
Did you get your demo yet?
@@rebirth_mishap yes, I've realized there isn't such a thing as a natural vacuum.
The exhaust from the rocket would fill up the vacuum, so it wouldn't be a vacuum anymore, making it pretty much impossible to test accurately.
@@antondehaan1474 except it would need oxygen first
don't forget : plus without gravity
is it possible to travel in space kinda like sea turtles useing curents in the water for speed insted of fule? Are there parts of space like the ocean like that?
You could use solar sails, which use the solar wind for acceleration.
The other option is a series of gravity assists, passing close enough to a moon or planet to get a free change in your direction. If you line up several gravity assists you can get to almost anywhere in the solar system with almost no fuel expenditure, but it will take a very long time.
What do thrusters push ions or compressed air against? In the vacuum of space?
They push the ions or exhaust
@@afoxwithahat7846 what do they push them against?
@@sammm7677 exhaust, it's made of particles, it has mass.
@@sammm7677 if an atmosphere slows it down later or not, it's a problem of the exhaust, not the spacecraft
@@sammm7677 Answer this very simple physics question to help you:
If I fired a steel projectile from a CROSSBOW in a vacuum, will I feel a recoil force?
Yes or No?
Not so sure about the car analogy and wish you just discussed the rocket combustion process directly, but good discussion on the third law!
Yes there is a bit of misconception on car exhaust equating to thrust but she nailed the balloon demo!
MrJackHackney what's the misconception?
Shadowboost At :54 she explained the internal combustion forced exhaust out of the back of the car to drive the car forward.
+MrJackHackney
No she did not. She specifically said that the car exhaust does essentially nothing toward propelling the car. The car was only brought in to explain the misconception about the rocket.
Hi Amy,
Despite being negligible, compared to the engine exhaust thrust, the should be a difference between the vacuum and the air situation. There plume has to push the air too. We can see that with a water hose: even when the water flow is not enough to push the hose's tip, it might do so if you direct the flow to a wall. Of course, the effect is much stronger here since water is almost incompressible, but is is there.
Rockets work better in vacuum.
There is no air resistance to hinder the exhaust from accelerating away from the rocket motor.
Actually the plume from the water hose doesn't have to hit air. I don't know where you got that information. For every action there is an equal and opposite re- action.
Hey Amy - love your videos! Can you make one about LC39, and especially the Rubber Rooms?
And that answered that question. Thanks so much.
I know this gets explained a lot using Newton's Third Law (which is totally correct), but I think it's more intuitive to explain it using conservation of momentum. It's the same thing in the end, obviously, but just a different way of thinking about it.
Bio Sektor rules!
I agree.
Ive tried to tell this to flerfers. I ask, where does the mass of the fuel go? Does the exhaust have mass? Does that mass have velocity? How is momentum conserved if no external force is present? They refuse to answer any of the questions because they know subconsciously it will debunk their views.
Let’s pretend that there is oxygen and a fuel source and it is ignited to turn a turbine, that this is actually true and happens, because that’s how a rocket supposedly works (which is actually bullshit as well) well then, the turbine then spins at a high velocity and draws in air and then compresses it and pushes it out the back at higher pressure, creating thrust.
Thrust into a giant vacuum like space would harmlessly dissipate into that giant vacuum because a vacuum has no pressure, and you need pressure for thrust. Fucking elementary
@@sooperdoopercoolguy a) You've just described a jet engine, not a rocket. Some rocket engines use a turbine to provide propellant pressure, but not all. b) You don't need pressure to generate thrust; where did you get that idea? c) If rocket engines don't generate thrust, so do you explain how momentum is conversed? Because that really is elementary? d) Where did you get your physics degree? I got mine from the University of Warwick.
Its 2018, we shouldn't be having these discussion anymore...
Welcome back to the dark ages. We've missed you. LOOK....! a witch... I'll get my stool, you grab the matches.
Jack Hutchison of course we are having these discussions, the farther we get into advancements means the more idiots there are in general circulation.
Blame B.o.B. , Eddie Bravo, Kevin Irving and other celebrities showing belief in the flat earth. Didn't help that we have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse to counter them.
We shouldn't, and yet we have kids eating laundry detergent and adults trying to replace evolution with creationism in schools.
+Johnlanzer How did it "not help" to have Bill Nye & Tyson counter them? The problem is that ONLY Nye & Tyson are called upon these antiscience shitheads.
Another good video.
So if we punch in 0 gravity vacuume,we move opposite to the direction of punch?
Yes, and when you exert an equal amount of energy in the opposite direction to stop your hand from leaving your body your movement stops. So you would move for the duration of the actual movement of your punch and then stop.
I liked the restrained giggle when she released the balloon. The inner 10 year old in all of us.
That hair color is 🔥
Flammable?
It's what? You missed a word.
Evolution Inc. its fire if u cant see the icon
Ah. Does it not take longer to scroll through emojis to find the exact one?
Evolution Inc. nah i just type fire and it pops out if u wanna put emoji 🔥 android things... 🔥 👓 💩 🌈
One of the most common questions yet something that every student is taught in school. Probably more than once.
What is the rocket pushing on when it gets to space ??
It pushes on the MASS of the exhaust gas. Lookup the "Law of conservation of momentum"
That this question needs to be answered on this show saddens me. Ya know when Amy got into real technical stuff like pogo oscillation and gimbal lock? Ya, stuff that isn't literally explained on the first 5 pages of mid-school science book?
Sorry Amy, I love your work and am passionate about your subject, but the description in this video missed the mark. I once saw a video with Robert Llewelyn in which he showed the rocket principle by sitting in a shopping cart throwing bags of potatoes. By pushing against the potatoes, not the air, he pushed himself and the shopping cart backwards. I’d love to see a good working of that demo in this context. Fancy engaging in some physical comedy? 😆
Yeah, it's all the same. If you were to push a friend who is of similar stature to you you both will get pushed back the smae amount (unless you fight it).
I did not find any videos on your youtube channel about Lunokhod programme. I like your channel and the way you presenting vintage space stuff to the world. I hope you will have some time to make video about Lunokhod programme.
Another way to look at a rocket is as a pressure tank. If you fill a sealed container with high pressure fluid, the fluid in the tank will press equally on all sides of the tank. The force pressing on one side of the tank will exactly balance the force pressing on the opposite side of the tank, with the result that the net thrust is zero. If you now open a hole on one side of the tank, the fluid no longer presses on the inside of the tank at that spot. this means the pressure on the opposite side of the tank is no longer balanced by pressure where the hole is, so you end up with a net force pushing the tank away from the hole.
In a rocket, the pressurized fluid is usually produce by burning a fuel and oxidizer to produce huge amounts of hot, high pressure gas, but the same effect can be done by pumping air into a balloon, or even boiling water to make steam.