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?
@@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!)
@@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?
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....... >^..^
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.....
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.
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.
@@CoolPapaCash - "No they don't." He is mostly right. Most spacecraft use monopropellant thrusters for attitude control. These thrusters typically use Hydrazine only. The larger Delta-V thrusters are more likely to use Bi-Propellant where they include a fuel and oxidizer for more thrust. Go back and finish high school.
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.
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...
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.
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.
To Random.. yes it would but it would be rather hard to keep control if the thrust effect on mass weren't in near perfect balance and its why Rockets like the Saturn V engine nozzles would move to keep it from cartwheeling if the balance was lost. It's like trying to balance a broom by its handle on your palm and your shifting in to keep it up right and in the case of a Fire Extinguisher as Wall-E first cut loose he along with it tumbled/spin since thrust/mass were eccentric. Your right that a Fire Extinguisher would be a lousy thruster only because it pressure is made to shoot its contents a few feet/meter give or take and not knock over what it's aimed at just envelop it. If you've ever seen a can of pop breached because it fell it bounds around like a dog let off its leash but it not for long. Indeed in The Martian Watney would of likely suffocated long before getting caught releasing that much O2 and should of been pinwheeling since his arm with a hole in the glove was at his side instead of being held at the center of his body preferably with the other keep it there to kept the thrust/mass in equilibrium.
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.
Is there any footage of a rocket actually working in space like taking off from somewhere where you could actually analyze what is going on with the video
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 .
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.
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.
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.
I do completely agree, I cannot even grasp how one with absolutely basic education might not understand basic principles underlying Newtonian physics :/
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@CoreyMack5000 Right so. The three main things to remember are Newton's laws of motion and the law of conservation of momentum. Objects are happy to stay going at whatever speed and direction they are going in. They don't change unless something happens. This is just a fundamental property of matter, and it's Newton's first law of motion. In order to accelerate something, anything, it has to have some action applied to it. This is referred to as a force. This is Newton's second law of motion. Objects resist anything that attempts to accelerate them. They push back with equal force, but in the opposite direction. If you push something, like a shopping cart, it pushes you back. You feel this as the experience of the cart being hard to push from a standing start, but easy to keep going once up to speed. When a force is applied to something, it resists that force. Whatever applied the force feels the resistance as another force acting against them. Finally, conservation of momentum. Net change of momentum in a system is always zero. When a pool ball strikes another, they will each move off with a combined speed and direction (momentum) equal to the momentem of the original ball. The same principles apply in space with rockets. The spacecraft is floating along. Then the fuel and oxidiser is pumped through the engine and ignited, the resulting exhaust is accelerated out of the engine bell. The fuel and oxidiser has mass so it resists being accelerated, therefore the rocket experiences a force also in the opposite direction. The momentum of the fuel/oxidiser mix has been changed, to maintain total momentum the rocket's momentum must change also, in the opposite direction with equal magnitude. To change speed or direction, the rocket just points it's engine in the direction it wants to travel away from, and accelerate the fuel/oxidiser out of the engine.
@@CoreyMack5000 You just ignite the engine in the direction you want to move and there ya go. In a orbit, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but you said explain as if you were an idiot sooooo…..
My only problem with this video is the fact you had to make it for people older than 5. The general publics knowledge is going backwards. Thanks for trying to take it a little step forward.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion “ Whenever one body exerts a force on a second body, the first body experiences a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force that it exerts. Mathematically, if a body A exerts a force →FF→ on body B, then B simultaneously exerts a force −→F−F→ on A, or in vector equation form, →FAB=−→FBA.F→AB=−F→BA. Newton’s third law represents a certain symmetry in nature: Forces always occur in pairs, and one body cannot exert a force on another without experiencing a force itself. We sometimes refer to this law loosely as “action-reaction,” where the force exerted is the action and the force experienced as a consequence is the reaction. Newton’s third law has practical uses in analyzing the origin of forces and understanding which forces are external to a .system.” This destroys your irrational logic of Rockets in space, go read and read it and think about it. ( But I suspect half of you are Bots anyway and know, your just desperately trying the maintain the existing B/S)! And before anyone says the burning fuel drives the rocket, Impossible as the fuel is in and of itself the ACTION, or force, it cannot drive itself . The ACTION is the intermediary between the craft = the mass = the external mass to generate a reaction, hello, we are told by ESA and NASA Space has no mass, so Rocket is the mass, fuel in rocket is the action = drive force, AND where is Body (B) external mass, in the void of space for it to generate a reaction? OHHH its not there. Means it goes nowhere.. END OFF..
The rocket goes up because the exaust gases exert a force on the top and the sides of the combustion chamber, the side forces cancel out and only the up force remains, so the rocket accelerates upward Mo need for Newtons 3rd law
MAGA TRON - I can help you understand IF you answer three simple physics questions. You seem to have a proper grasp of the concept; you are just missing a small part of the puzzle. Most "physics deniers" will REFUSE to answer these three High School Level Questions. Let's first concern ourselves with rocket IN ATMOSPHERE, HERE ON EARTH. I like to use the Space Shuttle Main Engine as my example as there is a LOT of video. So, when a SSME is running (here on earth in atmosphere): 1 - Does the exhaust gas get ACCELERATED as it leaves the nozzle? 2 - Does the exhaust gas have MASS? 3 - Can MASS be ACCELERATED without a force? (or is a force REQUIRED to accelerate mass) Now IF you bothered to ever ANSWER these three questions, we could get to the ACTUAL questions regarding rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Unfortunately, I NEVER get that far as these "deniers" flat out REFUSE to just answer. Let's see if I can get a few answers on this thread. Then I'll get to the more significant questions.
@@HugoFilho. - "Mo need for Newtons 3rd law" Sorry but Rocket Propulsion is literally just Mechanical RECOIL of pushing mass out the back, So Rocket Propulsion is a DIRECT RESULT of Newton's third law. IN FACT, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation is derived from the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" which requires the Third Law. If You would care to answer my three questions presented above, we can get to the details (I suspect MAGA TRON will refuse to answer but we'll see)
@@stuartgray5877 both mine and yours explanation are correct, in mine the gas pressure is the action and the force that accelerates the exaust is the reaction of that force. In yours the upwards force is the reaction and the exaust force is the action. Action-reaction pairs are reciprocal, if A and B are a action-reaction pair, you can call A action and B reaction or vice-versa
@@HugoFilho. Agreed. One can calculate the thrust of a rocket using both methods. However, it still remains a fact that the "Rocket Equation" is derived from the Law of Conservation of Momentum and THAT is derived directly from the 3rd Law.
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!
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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?
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.
But most of these physics denying morons believe that gas HAS NO MASS. And basically none of them know the difference between “mass” and “weight” but still feel confident arguing physics with actual Engineers.
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.
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.
Seriously? People, I'm talking to you. Seriously? The ability to understand how a rocket moves in a vacuum is NOT... rocket science. Your school system failed you hard if you can't understand this extremely basic concept of force.
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...
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.
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
Because you refuse to be. There are tons of videos on RUclips practically showing this concept in action. If you don't get this physics 101 concept, that's on you.😢
Can an atmosphere exist right next to the vacuum of space. Bugger those RUclips videos you are referring to. We have all been duped about the existence of space.
@@GASolomons Yes, because it does. The great thing about science is that it will continue to be true whether you believe it or not. This atmosphere gets thinner and thinner as you increase altitude until it reaches a level that we would consider to be a vacuum. We don't see what you are describing, 1atm next to 0 atm, yes, that wouldn't work. But please understand this key fact about vacuums: "Vacuums do not suck". Gravity explains why we see the atmosphere acting the way it does. What is your model (a firmament that doesn’t exist holds the air in)? If that were the case explain why it gets thinner and thinner as you increase altitude. I can explain that with gravity. What’s your explanation?
@@Gnarlys_Garage NO SHE..................SHE DID NOT EXPLAIN IT !!!! 1:34 the force of the exhaust is NOT WHAT MOVES THE CAR ...............ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!! THE CAR ENGINE DOES WHAT IS CALLED..................................................."MECHANICAL WORK" ...........IT DOESN'T CREATE "THRUST" !!!
@@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258 SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT THE EXHAUST OF THE CAR IS THE ONE THAT MOVES THE CAR FORWARD HERE ON EARTH. IF THE CAR WAS IN SPACE IT COULD MOVE THE CAR a bit.
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?
@@MetoFulcurm What you've just said is mathematically identical to what the original comment said. It doesn't matter whether the mass you are accelerating and ejecting is inside or outside. What matters is that you are accelerating and ejecting mass.
The correct pronunciation would phonetically be ASS FALLT, ASSFALLT, ASSPHAULT, etc. Nowhere in the word asphalt is an SH sound indicated. the AS is separate from the PH with an F sound. Even if the P was considered silent and nonexistent the pronunciation would end up being ASH ALT. It is impossible to get the combined sounds of ASH and FAULT out of the spelling ASPHALT.
No. No one thinks that. This chick is an air head. A car moving along the ground has absolutely nothing to do with how a rocket is able to move when in a vacuum. She never answered the question at all. The air balloon doesn't resolve the question either, since she is doing it in normal, atmospheric conditions and not in a vacuum. Gravity has nothing to do with it either. She explained absolutely nothing! The stuff she talked about, I already knew since elementary school, yet I still don't know how anything propels itself in space, if their is nothing to push off of. If a rocket can push itself off against nothing, does that mean that we can swim in space? What's the difference? She never came close to answering that question, at all.
@@southernknight9983 You are correct. we cannot swim in space. Rockets cannot work in space either. the brains of people nowadays are staggeringly dense.
@@boptah7489 Well, apparently rockets do work in space, because they do, otherwise we would not have probes going well past Mars and even Pluto. I just don't have a reasonable explanation as to how that is possible in a vacuum. No one has been able to explain this to me, yet, with scientific reasoning. So far, I am skunking everyone else's theories in another thread, with my theory that this is impossible. Pretty amusing, really. lol!
@@southernknight9983 man has not sent anything up past about 50 miles. you cannot use a rocket in a vacuum. Rockets work on pressure.. you need to have higher pressure behind the rocket to move the rocket into the lower pressure area in front of it. Once people can see the utter nonsense of rockets thrusting off a vacuum. rt pretending that rockets work by ejecting mass out the back, then the veil is lifted.
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.
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.
I have found it very rewarding to ponder the concept of 'vacuum'. We don't yet fully understand the meaning of it, (collectively speaking), but it is crucial that we start to understand it if we hope to travel through it for any extended period of time.
Rockets can't go beyond low earth orbit. In a full vacuum, rockets exhaust wont create any acceleration because there is nothing for rockets exhaust to push against in order to cause acceleration. All you will see is exhaust going endlessly in space with no acceleration created in rocket. Imagine a man pushing a rock except man have his legs in air instead of ground. If a man has his leg on ground, he can push a rock because his legs are pushing against the ground. If his legs are in air, he can't push a rock because his legs are not pushing against anything. Same thing with rocket in space, there is nothing to push against. The only way a rocket can work in space is by creating a recoil effect by constantly exploding fuel mixed with liquid oxygen or exploding nukes at exhaust, explosion will create recoil effect therefore moving rocket forward in space but this isn't practical because you risk breaking the rocket. They are not using rocket technology in space, they are using EM gravity propulsion system secretly. Google "The Case for AntiGravity-booklet.pdf - Check The Evidence". Its already invented decades ago.
Ultra Instinct Xeno Bardock "the only way a rocket can work in space is by creating a recoil effect by constantly exploding fuel mixed with liquid oxygen" this is EXACTLY what rockets do you idiot
I know if I drive down hill I go further on a tank of fuel than if I go up hill. ( gravity. force, and whatever ) With space being kinda sparse, will certain fuels go farther Or get more MPG ?
The pressure created by the combustion of the rocket fuel pushes on the combustion chamber and the engine bell, not the atmosphere (or vaccum) outside of the engine. So rockets work fine in a vacuum.
@tam hill, Yes! Rockets use a function called "specific impulse" or ISP to gauge how efficient fuel use is under different circumstances. ISP is basically the fuel efficiency of that engine/fuel combination and it changes depending on air pressure and engine/fuel configuration of the rocket. But it stays the same for that rocket engine as long as it's in a vacuum. In fact, relevant to the subject of this video, rockets are actually LESS efficient in atmosphere than they are in a vacuum because the pressure of the air pushing back on the exhaust reduces the thrust. It's the difference between the pressure behind the exhaust gas and in front of the gas that causes thrust. Less pressure in the space outside the engine means greater thrust for the same amount of fuel. There is also a separate phenomenon known as "gravity losses" when flying a rocket. It's like going uphill because as you're trying to fly upwards gravity is trying to drag you back down. But if you can turn at an angle you can start going sideways fast enough to fly over the horizon before you hit the ground. This is called a "gravity turn." Do that long enough and you're in orbit. It's more efficient than going straight up, because if you just went straight up eventually you'd just fall straight back down again and then STILL have to add sideways velocity to your flight to get into orbit. Then there's ANOTHER phenomenon called the "Oberth effect" which, in simplified terms, calculates that you will gain a greater change in velocity the faster you are moving. So it is more efficient to do an engine burn when you are at the fastest point in your orbit.
The rocket doesn't have to fire the whole distance. Once the spacecraft reaches escape velocity, it can "coast' until it goes into orbit around the moon. The boost phase of the trip is short.
+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.
They say nothing of the sort. Rockets push on the mass they take with them to space. It is not a mystery (to those that bothered to finish high school)
I dont think the confusion is the ability to ignite the gas to make fire but the lack of atmosphere behind the rocket for that thrust to push against. This is what i find. Like how drones wont fly in a vacuum. Its easy enough to understand the thinking
A drone flies in the same way a rocket does. By pushing mass away from it. The very large difference is where they get the mass to push away. Drones (planes, helicopters, etc.) use the mass in the surrounding air. Rockets use fuel. The difference is what the fuel is used for. In a plane, fuel is used to operate an engine which in turn operates a propeller or turbine that sucks in surrounding mass and pushes it away. Rockets obviously can't do that because there is no surrounding air to suck in in the first place. So the fuel ITSELF is the mass which is pushed away. Rocket fuel is not used to operate an engine which then starts a mechanism that pushes mass away. The rocket fuel IS the mass that gets pushed away. Sure, it goes through some combustion process, but fundamentally, the rocket fuel is ignited and expelled at high velocity. The FUEL is being pushed away. Essentially, rockets still push mass away from them to propel themselves through space; they just bring it with them. Planes need a fuel tank to carry the fuel that operates a mechanism that pushes air. Rockets need a fuel tank to hold the very mass they push away from them.
I need help understanding why we can see so far on earth. 8 inches per mile squared grows exponentially but yet I see no earth curvature. The object or landmarks that are thousands of miles away from me are never obstructed by earths alleged curvature. And please don't tell me refraction because it's absurd. How can light bend when its supposed to be a constant? I truly need some proof that I can experiment on my own. Also how does a infinite vacuum exist next to an atmosphere. Also how is it that earth is rotating around its axis at 1,038 mph at the equator and also orbiting around the sun at 66,600 mph as well as vortexing through space with our solar system at 448,000 mph. That is so insanely fast. Waaaay fast than a even our fastest rocket. yet we don't feel anything? And how would it be possible for a rocket to leave earth s atmosphere when we are fucking zooming 448,000 mph through space. It would never be able to catch back up with earth. Also can you please explain how rockets can go 24,791 with men in it but while leaving earths orbit severely arch. That would kill you wouldn't it? Also can someone explain the recent live Iss footage where the astronauts were being interviewed and one decided to do a front flip and the guy next to him grabbed a visible wire on him by accident. Do astronauts need to be strapped by wires in the ISS for safety reasons? Some answers would be appreciated, in not trying to be a jerk I really just want to know.
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).
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.
From my engineering days, I see this one differently, or at least explain the same thing differently. In statics class, the premise of all our calculations was that equal and opposite forces balance out for a net force (and thus net acceleration) of zero. If an object is static (not accelerating), all forces acting upon it cancel out. That premise made calculating the forces on a static (non-accelerating) object relatively easy. In the combustion of a rocket engine, the violently expanding gases of the propellant exert forces in ALL directions. But the forces pressing on the "left" wall of the rocket are equaled and thus cancelled by the forces pressing on the "right" wall. And so forth. All forces exerted on the rocket are cancelled by their equal and opposite forces, EXCEPT those forces pushing the rocket up, because the opposite downward forces escape out the bottom, as those escaping gases are not pushing against a wall of the rocket. The same thing with the balloon you used in illustration. The rocket moves because there is not a complete balance of forces (by design). It moves in the direction of the unbalanced force, and does so in an atmosphere or a vacuum. It doesn't need to push against the ground or the air to do so.
It's sad that your actually have to make this video... The biggest irony is that most people outside of the United States never doubted NASA's achievements.
Alan Crabb And of course that we are generally better educated. But then in most of the world going to school isn't a life or death gamble, but that's another topic entirely.
@@eviltwin2322 going to school is not a life or death gamble. Most student in the US never experience any type of mass shooting in there life. Yes gun crime hear is a problem. But dont fucking make it seam like the second every kid walks into a school they get shot. They are still rare.
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.
if she'd said that the car's tyres have to push on the external body of the road it'd be too easy to deduce that a rocket's exhaust has to push on the external body of the atmosphere. so she had no choice but to bluster.
No. She said that the exhaust does generate some thrust, but not nearly enough to overcome the friction between the wheels and and road. This statement is entirely correct. What's your issue with it?
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 :)
@@WilliamReginaldLucas Just tell papalegba to shut the fuc|< UP so he knows you are not a bot. See paplegba labels anyone "smarter than him" as a "bot". So literally EVERYONE is a "bot" in his eyes.
@@papalegba6796 When your ONLY response to facts is calling everyone a bot, it really does demonstrate that YOU HAVE NOTHING. But bless your little heart for effort!
Newton's Laws of Motion have precisely nothing at all to to with magnetism. What are you babbling about? And Science doesn't have to 'work around it'. Unless you are dealing with objects travelling at extremely high velocity, or in an intense gravity well, then Newton's Laws work just fine. Otherwise, we have to take Relativity into account. But not magnetism, which has exactly nothing at all to with the laws of motion.
By ejecting water at high pressure force. Same principle as water ejecting through rubber pipe at high pressure force causes rubber pipe to propel in opposite direction. Higher efficiency in propulsion with water compared to gas in vacuum of space.
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. :)
Newtons 3rd law can't act on nothing of space. Rockets require atmosphere and walls to act as a barrier to push off against, in order for Newtons 3rd law to do its thing. Its like you are all claiming man can push a heavy rock with his legs floating in the air lol. You need your legs pushing against the ground in order for Newtons 3rd law to do its thing and allow you to push a heavy rock. Same thing with the rockets. Its not going to work in space with no atmosphere and walls around. You need to constantly explode the fuel at exhaust like tnt explosions, recoil effect from those explosions is what will propel rocket in space, the only way for rockets to work in space and its too risky for manned missions beyond low earth orbit.
Hang on a second. I though you said that rockets require an atmosphere to push off of. Yet, you claim that man cannot push a heavy rock by pushing his legs......in air. Why do rockets work in air, but my pushing my feet does not? This is inconsistent logic. The answer : the actual mechanism that powers rockets is the ejection of mass away from them. They work on the concept of the law of conservation of momentum. If you take a bunch of mass and you eject it away from you, the laws of physics will maintain the momentum of that system and you will be thrust in the opposite direction. This is closely related to Newton's third law. You say that you need to constantly explode fuel for rockets to work. Yeah, that's what they do.
Inconsistent logic? Are you confused? Read my comment again. Rockets work in air because the air/atmosphere acts as a barrier for rockets exhaust to push off against.
They will have to tnt explode the fuel inside a container constantly and let some of the recoil effect escape from the exhaust hole along with all the gases while other recoil effect from explosions hit the walls of rockets and propel rocket in space. The hole at the exhaust is important otherwise rocket explodes instead. It is the recoil effect that propels rocket in space, not the explosions and exhaust gases themselves.
Rocket technology is not a viable option for man to travel beyond low earth orbit because its too risky. And they are not using rocket technology for that, they are using undisclosed electrogravitics technology. Google "The Case for AntiGravity-booklet.pdf - Check The Evidence".
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.
@@niallkinsella2687 I listen to common sense, not masonic lies. If there's nothing to push against, there is no push. It's called critical thinking. The devil is in the details.
@@patrickdevlin7125 You are trying to apply your personal knowledge and experiences to space travel? This is the act of sitting on top of a controlled explosion traveling through something completely alien to your understanding of how things operate, fast enough to see 16 dawns per day. You are trying to apply your personal edition of "common sense" to this. Do you really believe your "common sense" has the competence to deal with such a scenario? Anyway, this bit is relatively simple. The only thing you need to do to accelerate in space is to accelerate some mass and eject it. Conservation of momentum does the rest. No atmosphere required.
The wheel interacts with the ground, the propeller interacts with the water, the jet turbine interacts with the air, the rocket engine interact with... vacuum? Yeah, sure 😂😂😂
The rocket engine interacts with the mass of it's fuel and oxidiser. Exactly the same as a jet engine, except the jet gets it's oxidiser from the atmosphere while a rocket carries its own oxidiser
@@niallkinsella2687 The ship moves by the propeller pushing the water behind it. An airplane flies by having the engine push air behind it. Since a vacuum is empty space, please explain to me what a rocket engine pushes behind it?
@@igormladenovic8851 Wrong. Jets engines use exactly the same principles as rockets do to create thrust. Accelerating mass in one direction and ejecting it. Conservation of momentum does the rest. Jets just need an atmosphere because they need to get their oxidiser from the atmosphere.
You can't have equal and opposite reaction without resistance. Because earths atmosphere acts as a resistance for rockets exhaust to push off against, that rocket can fly. In space, there is no resistance due to it being vacuum so action from rockets exhaust can't cause reaction because reaction requires something else external (earths atmosphere, ground, wall) to act as resistance. Everyone who is claiming rocket work in space is basically claiming that person floating in air can cause equal and opposite reaction without pushing off on something else and move anywhere he/she wants while floating. We all know the person floating in air will just get stranded in air if he/she can't push off against something else. Same thing with rockets in space.
@Xeno Bardock wrote: "You can't have equal and opposite reaction without resistance." You can. Read about conservation of momentum. You can experience that every day. Just try tu push someone/something who is about your weight. You will notice that the same force which you apply to him/it you also exerts on your body. That is because when you push something you encounter resistance due to properities of the molecules called inertia.
@@martingorbush2944 That someone/something you push resists your action and reacts in the form of equal and opposite reaction. If you punch the wall, the wall resists your punch and delivers equal and opposite reaction. If you punch the empty space, space doesn't resists therefore delivers no equal and opposite reaction. Someone/something acting as resistance is important in order for equal and opposite reaction to take place. Empty space wont react with anything.
You forgot about another form of "resistance": conservation of momentum. When two particles collide their summary momentum doesn't change (m1*V1+m2*V2=constant). When particles gains speed thanks to chemical reaction (i.e. oxidation - so called burning) they gain speed thanks to conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy (E=m*V^2). Particles of gas moves in every possible direction and if possible they collide with solid object or other particles. Then they transfer some of that energy to other matter. What that implicate when gas burns inside semi-open chamber (combustion chamber)? Some of the energy of the hot gas particles is transferred into solid walls of that chamber. That is what provides thrust for rocket.
@@martingorbush2944 The gas burning inside a semi-open chamber still requires to meet with the external resistance aka earths atmosphere in order for efficient thrust to occur. Vacuum of space will do the opposite of resistance, it will pull on all the exhaust gases which is not what you want to happen. Yes some burning exhaust gases will hit the walls of rocket chamber transferring small energy to it but this is nowhere enough to produce efficient thrust in vacuum of space and the strong pull from vacuum of space will make it lot more difficult so the only way for rocket to work in space is to mix fuel with lot of liquid oxygen in a container, eject container from rocket exhaust and TNT explode the fuel right away and repeat the process. Recoil effect from strong TNT explosions will propel rocket in space. Exploding nukes will be even better for stronger recoil effect. But this method is a double-edged sword as it will eventually destroy the rocket/space shuttle propelling in space.
@Xeno wrote: "The gas burning inside a semi-open chamber still requires to meet with the external resistance aka earths atmosphere in order for efficient thrust to occur" Yes and no. It mostly depends from what you mean when you write "efficient". Maybe it isn't "efficient" thrust but it is thrust nevertheless when expanding gas particles are pushed away from hottest burning place in every direction. Not only to the back of the rocket. Then some of them will collide with combustion chamber walls and give away some of its momentum. That is the thing you seems to not understand. What's more even injecting fuel and oxidizer into that chamber creates some thrust because particle contained within these substances must be pushed into that chamber. And according to experiments and second Newton's law every action creates equal opposite reaction. Am I wrong?
The force of the fuel exploding in the engine pushes the pistons down (like how a rocket exhaust pushes on the bell of a rocket). That force is then transferred to the wheels, which turn and push the car forward.
No, the explosion in the engine works because it's happening in a pressurised air tight chamber, the piston is the only movable component so that moves & pushes on the crank to create rotational motion. You can't compare that to how a rocket works in a vacuum (complete lack of pressure), sorry.
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.
Lmao, I think your mind has vacuum. Rockets go into space which is vacuum and pushing out the gas will push the rocket in the opposite direction of the gas, and a cars exhaust gives a very small amount of thrust, but it does move the car by a very small bit, she mentioned it's no enough to move the car, and the engines pushes the wheels
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!)
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?
@@Diabolical-Tyrant you really believe the original comment. Sounds like bullshit
The true reply should have been neither work in space
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.
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?
*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.
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.
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).
😂she has no idea how engines in car works… the exhaust is pushing the car? 😂😂😂
😂
Inreal aey
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.
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
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.
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.
@@CoolPapaCash - "No they don't."
He is mostly right. Most spacecraft use monopropellant thrusters for attitude control.
These thrusters typically use Hydrazine only.
The larger Delta-V thrusters are more likely to use Bi-Propellant where they include a fuel and oxidizer for more thrust.
Go back and finish high school.
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.
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.
@@Profile2.5 So rockets don't push against anything, they just move on their own?
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.
@Davi Bavaro 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
To Random.. yes it would but it would be rather hard to keep control if the thrust effect on mass weren't in near perfect balance and its why Rockets like the Saturn V engine nozzles would move to keep it from cartwheeling if the balance was lost. It's like trying to balance a broom by its handle on your palm and your shifting in to keep it up right and in the case of a Fire Extinguisher as Wall-E first cut loose he along with it tumbled/spin since thrust/mass were eccentric. Your right that a Fire Extinguisher would be a lousy thruster only because it pressure is made to shoot its contents a few feet/meter give or take and not knock over what it's aimed at just envelop it. If you've ever seen a can of pop breached because it fell it bounds around like a dog let off its leash but it not for long. Indeed in The Martian Watney would of likely suffocated long before getting caught releasing that much O2 and should of been pinwheeling since his arm with a hole in the glove was at his side instead of being held at the center of his body preferably with the other keep it there to kept the thrust/mass in equilibrium.
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.
Is there any footage of a rocket actually working in space like taking off from somewhere where you could actually analyze what is going on with the video
Have a look at any of SpaceX's videos mate.
No taking off from the iss for more then a couple seconds
@@lobisomembjj5304
You mean undocking?
Watch "Six SpaceX launches synchronized to the landings" for over thirty examples of rocket propulsion in a vacuum.
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 !!!!
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.
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).
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
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do things stop in space or change directions?
By accelerating and ejecting some mass.
This is what rocket motors do.
@@niallkinsella2687 this didn’t really help me . Can you explain it like I’m a complete idiot?
@@CoreyMack5000
Right so.
The three main things to remember are Newton's laws of motion and the law of conservation of momentum.
Objects are happy to stay going at whatever speed and direction they are going in. They don't change unless something happens. This is just a fundamental property of matter, and it's Newton's first law of motion.
In order to accelerate something, anything, it has to have some action applied to it. This is referred to as a force. This is Newton's second law of motion.
Objects resist anything that attempts to accelerate them. They push back with equal force, but in the opposite direction. If you push something, like a shopping cart, it pushes you back. You feel this as the experience of the cart being hard to push from a standing start, but easy to keep going once up to speed.
When a force is applied to something, it resists that force. Whatever applied the force feels the resistance as another force acting against them.
Finally, conservation of momentum. Net change of momentum in a system is always zero. When a pool ball strikes another, they will each move off with a combined speed and direction (momentum) equal to the momentem of the original ball.
The same principles apply in space with rockets. The spacecraft is floating along. Then the fuel and oxidiser is pumped through the engine and ignited, the resulting exhaust is accelerated out of the engine bell. The fuel and oxidiser has mass so it resists being accelerated, therefore the rocket experiences a force also in the opposite direction.
The momentum of the fuel/oxidiser mix has been changed, to maintain total momentum the rocket's momentum must change also, in the opposite direction with equal magnitude.
To change speed or direction, the rocket just points it's engine in the direction it wants to travel away from, and accelerate the fuel/oxidiser out of the engine.
@@CoreyMack5000 Consider an experiment: what would happen if a CROSSBOW fired into a vacuum? Would it still feel a recoil force? Yes or No?
@@CoreyMack5000 You just ignite the engine in the direction you want to move and there ya go. In a orbit, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but you said explain as if you were an idiot sooooo…..
My only problem with this video is the fact you had to make it for people older than 5. The general publics knowledge is going backwards. Thanks for trying to take it a little step forward.
@Seniku Moonjewel because the white population is declining
**sees the balloon. Waits for you to release the balloon. Says "woohoo!" when the balloon is released. Sighs happily**
...needs to get out more.
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.
the exhaust pushes cars forward?
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
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.
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.
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.
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😭
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.
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.
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.
Love from "INDIA"🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
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.
I liked the restrained giggle when she released the balloon. The inner 10 year old in all of us.
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
Newton’s Third Law of Motion
“ Whenever one body exerts a force on a second body, the first body experiences a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the force that it exerts. Mathematically, if a body A exerts a force →FF→ on body B, then B simultaneously exerts a force −→F−F→ on A, or in vector equation form,
→FAB=−→FBA.F→AB=−F→BA.
Newton’s third law represents a certain symmetry in nature: Forces always occur in pairs, and one body cannot exert a force on another without experiencing a force itself. We sometimes refer to this law loosely as “action-reaction,” where the force exerted is the action and the force experienced as a consequence is the reaction. Newton’s third law has practical uses in analyzing the origin of forces and understanding which forces are external to a .system.”
This destroys your irrational logic of Rockets in space, go read and read it and think about it. ( But I suspect half of you are Bots anyway and know, your just desperately trying the maintain the existing B/S)! And before anyone says the burning fuel drives the rocket, Impossible as the fuel is in and of itself the ACTION, or force, it cannot drive itself . The ACTION is the intermediary between the craft = the mass = the external mass to generate a reaction, hello, we are told by ESA and NASA Space has no mass, so Rocket is the mass, fuel in rocket is the action = drive force, AND where is Body (B) external mass, in the void of space for it to generate a reaction? OHHH its not there. Means it goes nowhere.. END OFF..
The rocket goes up because the exaust gases exert a force on the top and the sides of the combustion chamber, the side forces cancel out and only the up force remains, so the rocket accelerates upward
Mo need for Newtons 3rd law
MAGA TRON - I can help you understand IF you answer three simple physics questions.
You seem to have a proper grasp of the concept; you are just missing a small part of the puzzle.
Most "physics deniers" will REFUSE to answer these three High School Level Questions.
Let's first concern ourselves with rocket IN ATMOSPHERE, HERE ON EARTH.
I like to use the Space Shuttle Main Engine as my example as there is a LOT of video.
So, when a SSME is running (here on earth in atmosphere):
1 - Does the exhaust gas get ACCELERATED as it leaves the nozzle?
2 - Does the exhaust gas have MASS?
3 - Can MASS be ACCELERATED without a force? (or is a force REQUIRED to accelerate mass)
Now IF you bothered to ever ANSWER these three questions, we could get to the ACTUAL questions regarding rocket propulsion in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, I NEVER get that far as these "deniers" flat out REFUSE to just answer.
Let's see if I can get a few answers on this thread.
Then I'll get to the more significant questions.
@@HugoFilho. - "Mo need for Newtons 3rd law"
Sorry but Rocket Propulsion is literally just Mechanical RECOIL of pushing mass out the back, So Rocket Propulsion is a DIRECT RESULT of Newton's third law.
IN FACT, the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation is derived from the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" which requires the Third Law.
If You would care to answer my three questions presented above, we can get to the details (I suspect MAGA TRON will refuse to answer but we'll see)
@@stuartgray5877 both mine and yours explanation are correct, in mine the gas pressure is the action and the force that accelerates the exaust is the reaction of that force. In yours the upwards force is the reaction and the exaust force is the action.
Action-reaction pairs are reciprocal, if A and B are a action-reaction pair, you can call A action and B reaction or vice-versa
@@HugoFilho. Agreed. One can calculate the thrust of a rocket using both methods.
However, it still remains a fact that the "Rocket Equation" is derived from the Law of Conservation of Momentum and THAT is derived directly from the 3rd Law.
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
the biggest misconception is the person in this movie 😂
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?
Lets face it the infinite vacuum of space makes jet propulsion impossible.
Space isn't an infinite vacuum and it wouldn't matter if it was-rockets work in a vacuum.
@@darklight2.1 so w=PV is wrong? ok chatbot.
@@77thbrigadesockpuppetaccou50 lol
Wow, that sets a new high in stupid.
@@darklight2.1 if you don't understand w=PV just say so, chatbot.
macho Understand the difference between jets and rockets.
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.
"We know that for something to burn, we need a fuel, and a spark, and a source of oxygen."
One word - HYPERGOLICS.
Rocket Car
no oxygen in space ....
@@andyhutchins6631 So what?
Rockets carry their own.
Thrust works in space because rockets push against the mass of its own dispersing exhaust.
But most of these physics denying morons believe that gas HAS NO MASS.
And basically none of them know the difference between “mass” and “weight” but still feel confident arguing physics with actual Engineers.
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.
Seriously? People, I'm talking to you. Seriously? The ability to understand how a rocket moves in a vacuum is NOT... rocket science. Your school system failed you hard if you can't understand this extremely basic concept of force.
It is, but it's very basic rocket science.
It's kinematics really.
Kinematics deals with the PROPERTIES of motion... Not really necessary for this discussion. You would be arguing semantics to defend it.
Oh, yeah, just checked that on wikipedia. My high school science teacher lied to me then XD.
@@Braden-York
I think you have stump many people who are know alls.
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...
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 😂
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
I'm not convinced at all.
Neither am I.
Because you refuse to be. There are tons of videos on RUclips practically showing this concept in action. If you don't get this physics 101 concept, that's on you.😢
Can an atmosphere exist right next to the vacuum of space. Bugger those RUclips videos you are referring to. We have all been duped about the existence of space.
@@GASolomons Yes, because it does. The great thing about science is that it will continue to be true whether you believe it or not. This atmosphere gets thinner and thinner as you increase altitude until it reaches a level that we would consider to be a vacuum. We don't see what you are describing, 1atm next to 0 atm, yes, that wouldn't work. But please understand this key fact about vacuums: "Vacuums do not suck". Gravity explains why we see the atmosphere acting the way it does. What is your model (a firmament that doesn’t exist holds the air in)? If that were the case explain why it gets thinner and thinner as you increase altitude. I can explain that with gravity. What’s your explanation?
And yet you proved nothing from reading your cue cards 🤦🏽♂️
It’s okay if you don’t understand. She explained it perfectly.
@@Gnarlys_Garage NO SHE..................SHE DID NOT EXPLAIN IT !!!!
1:34 the force of the exhaust is NOT WHAT MOVES THE CAR ...............ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!! THE CAR ENGINE DOES WHAT IS CALLED..................................................."MECHANICAL WORK" ...........IT DOESN'T CREATE "THRUST" !!!
@@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258 SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT THE EXHAUST OF THE CAR IS THE ONE THAT MOVES THE CAR FORWARD HERE ON EARTH. IF THE CAR WAS IN SPACE IT COULD MOVE THE CAR a bit.
@@Gnarlys_Garage it's okay if you understood what she said but it's not okay that you don't understand how it really works :D
XD
What does it push against to move the rocket once in a vacuum....?
The fuel.
Exact same as when there rocket is in an atmosphere.
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?
@@MetoFulcurm
What you've just said is mathematically identical to what the original comment said.
It doesn't matter whether the mass you are accelerating and ejecting is inside or outside.
What matters is that you are accelerating and ejecting mass.
What is ash fault?
apburner1 Canadian pronounciation
She meant asphalt.
OK, I now have to ask - how do Americans (from the USA) pronounce it? The British pronunciation is the same as Amy's.
The correct pronunciation would phonetically be ASS FALLT, ASSFALLT, ASSPHAULT, etc.
Nowhere in the word asphalt is an SH sound indicated. the AS is separate from the PH with an F sound. Even if the P was considered silent and nonexistent the pronunciation would end up being ASH ALT. It is impossible to get the combined sounds of ASH and FAULT out of the spelling ASPHALT.
+Tevildo
I'm British and I pronounce it 'ass-fault'. Never heard anyone call it 'ash-fault' before today. That just sounds wrong.
Hol' up... Someone actually thinks that cars move forward bc of the exhaust...??
Jheezhus H Kuh-rist...
Those are RUclips researchers
No. No one thinks that. This chick is an air head. A car moving along the ground has absolutely nothing to do with how a rocket is able to move when in a vacuum. She never answered the question at all.
The air balloon doesn't resolve the question either, since she is doing it in normal, atmospheric conditions and not in a vacuum. Gravity has nothing to do with it either. She explained absolutely nothing! The stuff she talked about, I already knew since elementary school, yet I still don't know how anything propels itself in space, if their is nothing to push off of.
If a rocket can push itself off against nothing, does that mean that we can swim in space? What's the difference? She never came close to answering that question, at all.
@@southernknight9983 You are correct. we cannot swim in space. Rockets cannot work in space either. the brains of people nowadays are staggeringly dense.
@@boptah7489 Well, apparently rockets do work in space, because they do, otherwise we would not have probes going well past Mars and even Pluto.
I just don't have a reasonable explanation as to how that is possible in a vacuum. No one has been able to explain this to me, yet, with scientific reasoning.
So far, I am skunking everyone else's theories in another thread, with my theory that this is impossible. Pretty amusing, really. lol!
@@southernknight9983 man has not sent anything up past about 50 miles. you cannot use a rocket in a vacuum. Rockets work on pressure.. you need to have higher pressure behind the rocket to move the rocket into the lower pressure area in front of it.
Once people can see the utter nonsense of rockets thrusting off a vacuum. rt pretending that rockets work by ejecting mass out the back, then the veil is lifted.
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.
I have found it very rewarding to ponder the concept of 'vacuum'. We don't yet fully understand the meaning of it, (collectively speaking), but it is crucial that we start to understand it if we hope to travel through it for any extended period of time.
Rockets can't go beyond low earth orbit. In a full vacuum, rockets exhaust wont create any acceleration because there is nothing for rockets exhaust to push against in order to cause acceleration. All you will see is exhaust going endlessly in space with no acceleration created in rocket. Imagine a man pushing a rock except man have his legs in air instead of ground. If a man has his leg on ground, he can push a rock because his legs are pushing against the ground. If his legs are in air, he can't push a rock because his legs are not pushing against anything. Same thing with rocket in space, there is nothing to push against.
The only way a rocket can work in space is by creating a recoil effect by constantly exploding fuel mixed with liquid oxygen or exploding nukes at exhaust, explosion will create recoil effect therefore moving rocket forward in space but this isn't practical because you risk breaking the rocket.
They are not using rocket technology in space, they are using EM gravity propulsion system secretly. Google "The Case for AntiGravity-booklet.pdf - Check The Evidence". Its already invented decades ago.
Ultra Instinct Xeno Bardock what a load of bs
You didn't understood anything. Watch video "Getting Gunpowder To Burn In A Vacuum".
Ultra Instinct Xeno Bardock you literally described the way how rockets work after claiming they don't work
Read my comment again. I said there is only one way rockets can work in space.
Ultra Instinct Xeno Bardock "the only way a rocket can work in space is by creating a recoil effect by constantly exploding fuel mixed with liquid oxygen" this is EXACTLY what rockets do you idiot
How can thrust work in a vacuum when there’s nothing to push off of
Conservation of momentum. Rockets don’t work by pushing off from anything. Duh.
Newton's law...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Rockets push high pressure gases out of them, so they can fly in space.
It is pretty simple.
FelpeXD _ops
Basic physics, conservation of momentum!
I know if I drive down hill I go further on a tank of fuel than if I go up hill. ( gravity. force, and whatever ) With space being kinda sparse, will certain fuels go farther Or get more MPG ?
The pressure created by the combustion of the rocket fuel pushes on the combustion chamber and the engine bell, not the atmosphere (or vaccum) outside of the engine. So rockets work fine in a vacuum.
So what happens to all the mass being accelerated out he back of a Rocket? F=MA.
@tam hill, Yes! Rockets use a function called "specific impulse" or ISP to gauge how efficient fuel use is under different circumstances. ISP is basically the fuel efficiency of that engine/fuel combination and it changes depending on air pressure and engine/fuel configuration of the rocket. But it stays the same for that rocket engine as long as it's in a vacuum.
In fact, relevant to the subject of this video, rockets are actually LESS efficient in atmosphere than they are in a vacuum because the pressure of the air pushing back on the exhaust reduces the thrust. It's the difference between the pressure behind the exhaust gas and in front of the gas that causes thrust. Less pressure in the space outside the engine means greater thrust for the same amount of fuel.
There is also a separate phenomenon known as "gravity losses" when flying a rocket. It's like going uphill because as you're trying to fly upwards gravity is trying to drag you back down. But if you can turn at an angle you can start going sideways fast enough to fly over the horizon before you hit the ground. This is called a "gravity turn." Do that long enough and you're in orbit. It's more efficient than going straight up, because if you just went straight up eventually you'd just fall straight back down again and then STILL have to add sideways velocity to your flight to get into orbit.
Then there's ANOTHER phenomenon called the "Oberth effect" which, in simplified terms, calculates that you will gain a greater change in velocity the faster you are moving. So it is more efficient to do an engine burn when you are at the fastest point in your orbit.
@Vintage Space 1968 How did we have enough fuel in a rocket to make a 476k mile roundtrip to the moon and back to earth?
By having a rocket big enough to contain it.
The used gravity to propell.
The rocket doesn't have to fire the whole distance. Once the spacecraft reaches escape velocity, it can "coast' until it goes into orbit around the moon. The boost phase of the trip is short.
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.
Hey amy check out ksp's new update and the new dlc which covers vintage space stuff literally!
It's annoying that you try to say that rockets don't push against the earth to propel into space, and then you explain exactly that happening....
They say nothing of the sort. Rockets push on the mass they take with them to space. It is not a mystery (to those that bothered to finish high school)
@@stuartgray5877 yep. Didn't make sense to me in high school either. Maybe there's a better explainer out there.
@@greghillmusic I can help with that:
Would a crossbow, fired into a vacuum, have any recoil?
Yes or no?
@@stuartgray5877
@@jrstuckey1471 And what exactly does that mean?
I dont think the confusion is the ability to ignite the gas to make fire but the lack of atmosphere behind the rocket for that thrust to push against. This is what i find. Like how drones wont fly in a vacuum. Its easy enough to understand the thinking
Rocket engines accelerate mass out the back and therefore MUST feel a "recoil force".
This recoil force is known as "forward Thrust"
A drone flies in the same way a rocket does. By pushing mass away from it. The very large difference is where they get the mass to push away. Drones (planes, helicopters, etc.) use the mass in the surrounding air. Rockets use fuel.
The difference is what the fuel is used for. In a plane, fuel is used to operate an engine which in turn operates a propeller or turbine that sucks in surrounding mass and pushes it away. Rockets obviously can't do that because there is no surrounding air to suck in in the first place. So the fuel ITSELF is the mass which is pushed away. Rocket fuel is not used to operate an engine which then starts a mechanism that pushes mass away. The rocket fuel IS the mass that gets pushed away. Sure, it goes through some combustion process, but fundamentally, the rocket fuel is ignited and expelled at high velocity. The FUEL is being pushed away. Essentially, rockets still push mass away from them to propel themselves through space; they just bring it with them. Planes need a fuel tank to carry the fuel that operates a mechanism that pushes air. Rockets need a fuel tank to hold the very mass they push away from them.
Remember kids watching random conspiracy videos on youtube is NOT research.
I need help understanding why we can see so far on earth. 8 inches per mile squared grows exponentially but yet I see no earth curvature. The object or landmarks that are thousands of miles away from me are never obstructed by earths alleged curvature. And please don't tell me refraction because it's absurd. How can light bend when its supposed to be a constant? I truly need some proof that I can experiment on my own. Also how does a infinite vacuum exist next to an atmosphere. Also how is it that earth is rotating around its axis at 1,038 mph at the equator and also orbiting around the sun at 66,600 mph as well as vortexing through space with our solar system at 448,000 mph. That is so insanely fast. Waaaay fast than a even our fastest rocket. yet we don't feel anything? And how would it be possible for a rocket to leave earth s atmosphere when we are fucking zooming 448,000 mph through space. It would never be able to catch back up with earth. Also can you please explain how rockets can go 24,791 with men in it but while leaving earths orbit severely arch. That would kill you wouldn't it? Also can someone explain the recent live Iss footage where the astronauts were being interviewed and one decided to do a front flip and the guy next to him grabbed a visible wire on him by accident. Do astronauts need to be strapped by wires in the ISS for safety reasons? Some answers would be appreciated, in not trying to be a jerk I really just want to know.
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).
She is explaining combustion when she doesn't understand the basics of a car's driveshaft
FYI... im finally seeing your content in my youtube feed again after more then a year of not seeing anything.
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.
From my engineering days, I see this one differently, or at least explain the same thing differently. In statics class, the premise of all our calculations was that equal and opposite forces balance out for a net force (and thus net acceleration) of zero. If an object is static (not accelerating), all forces acting upon it cancel out. That premise made calculating the forces on a static (non-accelerating) object relatively easy.
In the combustion of a rocket engine, the violently expanding gases of the propellant exert forces in ALL directions. But the forces pressing on the "left" wall of the rocket are equaled and thus cancelled by the forces pressing on the "right" wall. And so forth. All forces exerted on the rocket are cancelled by their equal and opposite forces, EXCEPT those forces pushing the rocket up, because the opposite downward forces escape out the bottom, as those escaping gases are not pushing against a wall of the rocket. The same thing with the balloon you used in illustration.
The rocket moves because there is not a complete balance of forces (by design). It moves in the direction of the unbalanced force, and does so in an atmosphere or a vacuum. It doesn't need to push against the ground or the air to do so.
Anyone who understands what you just wrote... does not think rockets can't work in space. Hence why they need it explained to them.
LOL. Trying to understand your comment myself. Was that an affirmation or a criticism? I think it was an affirmation.
Yes, I'm 100% on your side.
Well thank you. :D
It's sad that your actually have to make this video... The biggest irony is that most people outside of the United States never doubted NASA's achievements.
Yup - that's partly because we have our own space agencies (Hoo-ray, E.S.A.)
Alan Crabb And of course that we are generally better educated. But then in most of the world going to school isn't a life or death gamble, but that's another topic entirely.
Not true.. there's alot of european flat brainers...
@@eviltwin2322 going to school is not a life or death gamble. Most student in the US never experience any type of mass shooting in there life. Yes gun crime hear is a problem. But dont fucking make it seam like the second every kid walks into a school they get shot. They are still rare.
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.
What did you just say about cars? That they move by the thrust of the exhaust? With that knowledge I wouldn't trust a word she's saying
if she'd said that the car's tyres have to push on the external body of the road it'd be too easy to deduce that a rocket's exhaust has to push on the external body of the atmosphere. so she had no choice but to bluster.
No.
She said that the exhaust does generate some thrust, but not nearly enough to overcome the friction between the wheels and and road.
This statement is entirely correct. What's your issue with it?
@@niallkinsella2687 wow white knighting a nasa shill, great gig.
@@inniuniui9361
White knighting...sure...
Because if it was a man presenting the video then you'd just be wrong. Can't be having that now can we...
@@niallkinsella2687 i'm not wrong. so we can add gaslighting to your white knighting. quite the piece of work, aren't you, shill-thing?
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 :)
Hush, ChatGPT guy 😂
@@papalegba6796 okay lol
@@WilliamReginaldLucas Just tell papalegba to shut the fuc|< UP so he knows you are not a bot.
See paplegba labels anyone "smarter than him" as a "bot".
So literally EVERYONE is a "bot" in his eyes.
@@stuartgray5877 ok chatbot 😂
@@papalegba6796 When your ONLY response to facts is calling everyone a bot, it really does demonstrate that YOU HAVE NOTHING.
But bless your little heart for effort!
Newton's Laws
Don´t trust Newton too much, he had no clue about magnetism which shows in his formulas and now science has to work around it.
Elric the Impaler citation?
physics and magnetics are not necessarily the same, but sure
Corey Taylor magnetism is explained through physics
Newton's Laws of Motion have precisely nothing at all to to with magnetism. What are you babbling about? And Science doesn't have to 'work around it'. Unless you are dealing with objects travelling at extremely high velocity, or in an intense gravity well, then Newton's Laws work just fine. Otherwise, we have to take Relativity into account. But not magnetism, which has exactly nothing at all to with the laws of motion.
How to accelerate spacecraft in space.. Without ground and air?
By accelerating mass in the opposite direction to your desired direction of travel.
By ejecting water at high pressure force. Same principle as water ejecting through rubber pipe at high pressure force causes rubber pipe to propel in opposite direction. Higher efficiency in propulsion with water compared to gas in vacuum of space.
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
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
Newtons 3rd law can't act on nothing of space. Rockets require atmosphere and walls to act as a barrier to push off against, in order for Newtons 3rd law to do its thing. Its like you are all claiming man can push a heavy rock with his legs floating in the air lol. You need your legs pushing against the ground in order for Newtons 3rd law to do its thing and allow you to push a heavy rock. Same thing with the rockets. Its not going to work in space with no atmosphere and walls around. You need to constantly explode the fuel at exhaust like tnt explosions, recoil effect from those explosions is what will propel rocket in space, the only way for rockets to work in space and its too risky for manned missions beyond low earth orbit.
Hang on a second. I though you said that rockets require an atmosphere to push off of. Yet, you claim that man cannot push a heavy rock by pushing his legs......in air. Why do rockets work in air, but my pushing my feet does not? This is inconsistent logic.
The answer : the actual mechanism that powers rockets is the ejection of mass away from them. They work on the concept of the law of conservation of momentum. If you take a bunch of mass and you eject it away from you, the laws of physics will maintain the momentum of that system and you will be thrust in the opposite direction. This is closely related to Newton's third law.
You say that you need to constantly explode fuel for rockets to work. Yeah, that's what they do.
Inconsistent logic? Are you confused? Read my comment again. Rockets work in air because the air/atmosphere acts as a barrier for rockets exhaust to push off against.
They will have to tnt explode the fuel inside a container constantly and let some of the recoil effect escape from the exhaust hole along with all the gases while other recoil effect from explosions hit the walls of rockets and propel rocket in space. The hole at the exhaust is important otherwise rocket explodes instead. It is the recoil effect that propels rocket in space, not the explosions and exhaust gases themselves.
Rocket technology is not a viable option for man to travel beyond low earth orbit because its too risky. And they are not using rocket technology for that, they are using undisclosed electrogravitics technology. Google "The Case for AntiGravity-booklet.pdf - Check The Evidence".
Right. So why doesn't the air act as a barrier for my legs to push off of?
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.
In a vacuum there is nothing to push against. This is flawed thinking on this woman's part.
The presence of something to "push against" is not required by the laws of motion.
To assume otherwise is flawed thinking on your part.
@@niallkinsella2687 That's the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.
@@patrickdevlin7125
Newtonian physics do not require an atmosphere. What's difficult to grasp about this statement?
@@niallkinsella2687 I listen to common sense, not masonic lies. If there's nothing to push against, there is no push. It's called critical thinking. The devil is in the details.
@@patrickdevlin7125
You are trying to apply your personal knowledge and experiences to space travel?
This is the act of sitting on top of a controlled explosion traveling through something completely alien to your understanding of how things operate, fast enough to see 16 dawns per day.
You are trying to apply your personal edition of "common sense" to this.
Do you really believe your "common sense" has the competence to deal with such a scenario?
Anyway, this bit is relatively simple.
The only thing you need to do to accelerate in space is to accelerate some mass and eject it. Conservation of momentum does the rest.
No atmosphere required.
The wheel interacts with the ground, the propeller interacts with the water, the jet turbine interacts with the air, the rocket engine interact with... vacuum? Yeah, sure 😂😂😂
The rocket engine interacts with the mass of it's fuel and oxidiser.
Exactly the same as a jet engine, except the jet gets it's oxidiser from the atmosphere while a rocket carries its own oxidiser
@@niallkinsella2687 So the rocket engine interacts with itself? Cool. Guess I can get up now by pulling up on me belt.
@@DrCash7
Not with itself.
With the fuel and oxidiser, as I've already said
@@niallkinsella2687 The ship moves by the propeller pushing the water behind it. An airplane flies by having the engine push air behind it. Since a vacuum is empty space, please explain to me what a rocket engine pushes behind it?
@@igormladenovic8851
Wrong.
Jets engines use exactly the same principles as rockets do to create thrust.
Accelerating mass in one direction and ejecting it. Conservation of momentum does the rest.
Jets just need an atmosphere because they need to get their oxidiser from the atmosphere.
she couldn't even explain the car engine properly.
Amy Shira-Teitel, answering the internet's dumbest questions in a truly professional manner. Much better than I would've done haha.
You can't have equal and opposite reaction without resistance. Because earths atmosphere acts as a resistance for rockets exhaust to push off against, that rocket can fly. In space, there is no resistance due to it being vacuum so action from rockets exhaust can't cause reaction because reaction requires something else external (earths atmosphere, ground, wall) to act as resistance. Everyone who is claiming rocket work in space is basically claiming that person floating in air can cause equal and opposite reaction without pushing off on something else and move anywhere he/she wants while floating. We all know the person floating in air will just get stranded in air if he/she can't push off against something else. Same thing with rockets in space.
@Xeno Bardock wrote: "You can't have equal and opposite reaction without resistance." You can. Read about conservation of momentum. You can experience that every day. Just try tu push someone/something who is about your weight. You will notice that the same force which you apply to him/it you also exerts on your body. That is because when you push something you encounter resistance due to properities of the molecules called inertia.
@@martingorbush2944 That someone/something you push resists your action and reacts in the form of equal and opposite reaction. If you punch the wall, the wall resists your punch and delivers equal and opposite reaction. If you punch the empty space, space doesn't resists therefore delivers no equal and opposite reaction. Someone/something acting as resistance is important in order for equal and opposite reaction to take place. Empty space wont react with anything.
You forgot about another form of "resistance": conservation of momentum. When two particles collide their summary momentum doesn't change (m1*V1+m2*V2=constant). When particles gains speed thanks to chemical reaction (i.e. oxidation - so called burning) they gain speed thanks to conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy (E=m*V^2). Particles of gas moves in every possible direction and if possible they collide with solid object or other particles. Then they transfer some of that energy to other matter. What that implicate when gas burns inside semi-open chamber (combustion chamber)? Some of the energy of the hot gas particles is transferred into solid walls of that chamber. That is what provides thrust for rocket.
@@martingorbush2944 The gas burning inside a semi-open chamber still requires to meet with the external resistance aka earths atmosphere in order for efficient thrust to occur. Vacuum of space will do the opposite of resistance, it will pull on all the exhaust gases which is not what you want to happen. Yes some burning exhaust gases will hit the walls of rocket chamber transferring small energy to it but this is nowhere enough to produce efficient thrust in vacuum of space and the strong pull from vacuum of space will make it lot more difficult so the only way for rocket to work in space is to mix fuel with lot of liquid oxygen in a container, eject container from rocket exhaust and TNT explode the fuel right away and repeat the process. Recoil effect from strong TNT explosions will propel rocket in space. Exploding nukes will be even better for stronger recoil effect. But this method is a double-edged sword as it will eventually destroy the rocket/space shuttle propelling in space.
@Xeno wrote: "The gas burning inside a semi-open chamber still requires to meet with the external resistance aka earths atmosphere in order for efficient thrust to occur"
Yes and no. It mostly depends from what you mean when you write "efficient". Maybe it isn't "efficient" thrust but it is thrust nevertheless when expanding gas particles are pushed away from hottest burning place in every direction. Not only to the back of the rocket. Then some of them will collide with combustion chamber walls and give away some of its momentum. That is the thing you seems to not understand.
What's more even injecting fuel and oxidizer into that chamber creates some thrust because particle contained within these substances must be pushed into that chamber. And according to experiments and second Newton's law every action creates equal opposite reaction. Am I wrong?
The force of the fuel exploding in the engine pushes the pistons down (like how a rocket exhaust pushes on the bell of a rocket). That force is then transferred to the wheels, which turn and push the car forward.
No, the explosion in the engine works because it's happening in a pressurised air tight chamber, the piston is the only movable component so that moves & pushes on the crank to create rotational motion.
You can't compare that to how a rocket works in a vacuum (complete lack of pressure), sorry.
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?
Lmao, I think your mind has vacuum. Rockets go into space which is vacuum and pushing out the gas will push the rocket in the opposite direction of the gas, and a cars exhaust gives a very small amount of thrust, but it does move the car by a very small bit, she mentioned it's no enough to move the car, and the engines pushes the wheels
Can the balloon also move forward in vacume ?