Comments by "YSongCloud" (@YSongCloud) on "Искаженное восприятие" channel.

  1. Solid rocket motors have been used on occasion in space, and are usually reserved for missiles and other equipment that needs long storage times and can be quickly deployed without the need for lengthy fueling processes. If used in space, the igniter used is much different from the black powder igniters used in the experiment, which are produced specifically for use in the model rocket hobby and designed to be ignited on earth in a normal atmosphere. Ones that NASA or any other space agency would use would have an overabundance of oxidizer incorporated into it so as to assure complete ignition and temperatures high enough and long enough to ignite the fuel grains and create the appropriate flame front in the solid rocket motor combustion chamber in order to ignite the entire surface as designed. This need to fully ignite the fuel grain and allow the chamber to come up to proper pressure is why there is almost always a short delay between ignition of a solid rocket motor and the time in which full thrust is produced. Examples of these are the Castor-30 and Castor-120 solid rocket motors being used on the Athena IC and IIC launch vehicles, as well as in the Peacekeeper and Trident ICBMs. Now, to address another thing that Fancy Man Of Cornwood said, rockets do not work by "pushing on old exhaust gasses burnt moments before", because they don't operate like that. Thrust is produced inside the combustion chamber of all rocket engines due to unequal forces pushing against the walls of said chamber. The wall or area opposite where the nozzle is will have the greatest pressure due to the uneven pressures caused by the hot gasses being able to escape the system via the nozzle, so the net movement of the system is in the direction opposite the nozzle, as per Newton's third law, exactly what this video is proving. The surrounding environment of the rocket motor is of no consequence to this basic operation, and in fact, rockets are more efficient when in a vacuum as there is less friction from the surrounding air molecules that need to move out of the way. Finally, in regards to the "they use completely different systems of propulsion you twit" comment, Fancy Man of Cornwood seems to be the twit in that while the operation of the engines is different between solid rocket motors, liquid fueled motors, or even hybrids, the actual reason behind the thrust and propulsion is the same. Both use Newton's third law to produce a net movement due to unequal forces acting upon one particular surface of the combustion chamber with greater force than the others. It's science! :)
    1
  2. Because gravity plays no part in holding molecules, which have mass, to a planet, which also has mass, against a vacuum, which has nothing BECAUSE THE PARTICLES ARE BEING PULLED FROM IT VIA GRAVITY. Gravity is one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe. In fact, we are losing the lighter particles to the vacuum of space all of the time. Our planet regularly has a net loss of hydrogen, the lightest element, due to it's low mass. However, we also gain particles in the form of the solar wind and charged particles streaming in from space, especially the sun, so things stay fairly equal. There is no firmament, stop mixing your religion with science. Religion is religion and it is your belief/crutch/moral guide, it is not a substitute for science, nor should it ever be.
    1
  3. @Vary Thank you!!!
    1
  4. Correct. It is because of the pressure differential of the systems and how quickly that pressure changes that causes one to need a barrier and the other to be able to gradually transition. Look at the weather as another example of this. Storm systems are usually concentrated around low pressure areas, while clear, calm areas with little clouds are higher pressure areas. I can go into the mechanics of storm systems and density/temperature/pressure relationships, but it would be getting off track. My main point is that we can measure these pressure differences with a barometer as the high pressure/low pressure areas move across the planet. What separates these areas from each other? Not any physical barrier, but pressure gradients from one to the other, and the constant struggle for the systems to reach equilibrium in both pressure and temperature is called wind, IE. the movement of air, a fluid, from higher pressure to lower pressure and from warmer areas to cooler ones. This is the same thing that happens with our atmosphere being lost to space, but instead of temperature/pressure/density relationships causing air movement resulting in the high/low pressure systems, it is gravity. Actually, since the pressure difference is the measurement of the force of the atmosphere pressing down on the Earth's surface, technically gravity has a part to play in that as well. Science is fun! ;)
    1
  5. Rockets don't work by pushing against the surrounding atmosphere, so your claim that the vacuum chamber being compromised had anything to do with the thrust shown is incorrect. In the initial seconds of ignition, before the chamber was filled with anything from the engine itself, you could see the thrust being produced.
    1
  6. Rockets don't work by pushing on the surrounding atmosphere, so the smoke in the chamber has essentially no effect on anything.
    1
  7. Actually, the ESRBs used on the shuttle were gimbaled and had fairly good controls. Even the early V2 had jet vanes in the exhaust stream that could be moved to control flight direction, and the Titan IIIC controlled it via LITV (Liquid Injected Thrust Vectoring), in which liquid nitrogen tetroxide was injected into the exhaust stream at any one of several points around the nozzle, changing the exhaust flow due to the added mass and allowing flight to be controlled. They have even designed and tested solid engines which can be throttled and shut down through use of variable nozzle geometry or vent ports, however you are correct in that most solid rocket motors in operation will not stop until completely spent and that they have a lower specific impulse than liquid propellant rocket motors.
    1
  8. Incorrect on all accounts. Rockets don't work by pushing off of the surrounding atmosphere, so there is no need to have any atmosphere surrounding a rocket engine for it to work. As for being unable to ignite or burn anything in a pure vacuum, that is completely false as long as you have all of the components needed for combustion to occur, namely fuel, oxygen, and heat. A rocket motor contains all of those things within itself, so no external anything is required for combustion to occur.
    1
  9. What does that have to do with the movement of the rocket? The motor burned and produced movement in the vacuum in the milliseconds before anything escaped, plus, the volume of the chamber is quite a bit more than the volume of the gasses produced by the rocket motor. Either way, Newton's Third Law is confirmed.
    1
  10. The gasses burned inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor. They did not burn at the back of the chamber. And again, in the first few milliseconds, just as the hot vapors are beginning to escape the nozzle, there is already movement. Rocket motors don't push off the surrounding environment, the force of the high velocity flow of exhaust through the nozzle creates an opposing force pushing the motor in the opposite direction from the flow. It's really that simple. No external environment needed.
    1
  11. Then make one yourself and post a proper response video.
    1
  12. I always love to see videos from you. They are entertaining and informative and just awesome! Plus, seeing another Chicagoan is great! Keep up the amazing work, Matt!!!
    1
  13. Just as it takes a while to create the vacuum by evacuating the air inside the chamber, so it does not instantly come back the second the motor is ignited. The total volume of gas produced by the combustion of the motor is less than the total volume of the chamber. In addition, thrust can be seen in the first few milliseconds of combustion, well before any appreciable loss of vacuum has occurred.
    1
  14. What are you talking about? Rockets don't work by pushing against an atmosphere, they work by mass ejection and the overall net force of the pressure being exerted on the end of the combustion chamber of the rocket motor that is opposite of the nozzle.
    1
  15. Yes. Pressure in a weightless vacuum called space. The combustion chamber of a rocket holds pressure, as do many other tanks that are flown in space. The shuttle itself is a pressure vessel as it holds pressure against the vacuum of space.
    1
  16. Ok, let's deal with some of the problems in your response because I believe you are confusing weight with mass, which are NOT the same thing. 1. Things to not move because of resistance. Resistance is the force PREVENTING things from moving, hence the name, they RESIST things. 2. If you were somehow able to exist in the vacuum and extreme cold temperatures of space without a spacesuit and could exhale the air from your lungs somehow using a sort of magical scuba tank so you could still breathe, then yes, when you exhaled the air from your lungs, you would move because there is no resistance from the surrounding environment to stop you. There are not enough molecules or atoms around you to provide the frictional force to keep you in place. On earth, both the air and gravity provides forces that hold you in place. The air provides friction that needs to be overcome, when you move, you have to move the air molecules out of the way, each bump of a molecule slows you down, even though they are minuscule, but because there are thousands of molecules per liter of air, they add up. The force of gravity also resists movement, albeit in a more vertical direction, but it adds friction with whatever you are standing on, also preventing movement. However, in space, microgravity does not affect things as much, so although it still provides some force, it is many times less than that here on the surface. Because there are very few molecules in the vacuum of space (don't ever let anyone tell you the vacuum is completely empty, that's not true in the least), there are less molecules to bump into, therefore less frictional force to prevent movement and slow you down once you are moving. This would also be a good example of Newton's First law of motion as you would continue to drift simply from the one puff of air until you encountered enough molecules in your way to offset your inertia, or until the force of gravity from a passing object were able to interact with you enough to offset or change your path of motion. 3. Yes, in a weightless environment, if you were to push against your ship, it would move, as would you. However you have less mass than the ship, so the action would have more of an effect on you than on the ship. Again, here you are confusing mass with weight. Mass is the amount of matter in an object, essentially telling you how many atoms are contained in the specific object. This differs among objects as each material has it's own specific density, but a 2cm x 2cm x 2cm cube of solid lead will always have the same mass regardless of where it is, on earth or in space, or on some other planet. In this example, the volume of the cube is 6 cm³ and the density of lead is 11.34 g/cm², which means that our cube has 68.04 grams of mass. To calculate its weight, we would take the mass of the object times the force of gravity, which on earth is 9.8 m/s². This gives us a result of 0.666792 Newtons, which is the international standard for weight. Converting this back into grams properly gives us our 68.04 grams of weight, which on earth, equals the mass of the object. However, if we did the same equation, substituting the gravity on the moon, for example, then we would have 9.8 m/s² multiplied by 1/6, since the gravitational force of the moon is 1/6 that of earth's, which gives us a gravitational force of 1.6333333333333 m/s² (rounding to the closest ten trillionth). Plugging this into our formula for calculating the weight of an object ( W = m * g), we get 0.1111319999999 N (again, rounding to the closest ten trillionth). Converting this into grams, we would come up with a weight of 11.3323102 grams (rounded to the closest ten millionth). As this clearly shows, mass and weight are different, yet intertwined. On earth, we use the interchangeably, but this is not the case for places where for force of gravity is something other than the 9.8 m/s² we are used to. 4. Pressure can and does exist in space, as it is a force acting upon an object. This can and does happen in space all of the time. In your example, the wind blowing from every direction does, in fact cancel out as the net force is 0, however, that does not mean that you will not feel anything from the 100 mph wind pushing on you from all directions. You would, in fact, feel the pressure of those 27 lbs/ft² of force surrounding you. So even though you would have pressure around you, you would not move anywhere because the net forces cancel each other out. This is how pressure vessels normally work. A rocket motor is similar, except that they have a opening in one end, so the pressures do not cancel out. There is a net force in the direction OPPOSITE the nozzle as the nozzle creates an unequal force OUT of the vessel in that direction. Due to Newton's third law, the entire system moves in the direction opposite where the expanding gasses are now escaping. The nozzle design characteristics help to accelerate this flow via fluid dynamics and increase the increased flow velocity results in a larger opposing net force in the opposite direction to the flow, thereby adding to the force acting on the system in the direction opposite of the nozzle. I sincerely hope you are able to understand the things I am saying as it seems from your reply that there is the possibility of a language barrier. However, I hope that my responses have been clear enough, albeit not as concise as I would have liked, so that you are able to understand the mistakes you made in your response.
    1
  17. What are you talking about? Everything has mass. Mass is the measure of the amount of matter in an object. All objects have matter. The spaceship and rocket motor both have mass. Your logic from the start is therefore flawed. Things most certainly burn in space as long as they have fuel, heat, and oxygen. All of those are things that are contained internal to a rocket motor. The atmosphere is constantly being lost to space, so I'm a bit confused as to why you think it isn't going anywhere. However it is gravity that is keeping the majority of it here, where we are. The model of the earth with gravity is that way because it is the currently accepted theory that best fits the expiriments that we are able to perform on our own planet due to the nature of what we are able to observe, and that includes it being a globe. I do agree that the test as he performed was not an exact representation of the true vacuum of space, however it was close enough that reasonable assumptions can be drawn from the results. I agree, you cannot have mass without matter, which is what makes the possibility of dark matter so interesting if it is actually proven to exist. But as for conventional matter, this is absolutely correct in that photons of light have high energies but almost no mass, the mass to energy equations account for this via the conservation of matter/energy. I fail to see what a parachute has to do with anything as the functions are different, yes the overall net movement is the same. the friction of air filling the parachute offsets the constant pull of gravity. This would be akin to the orbiting ISS having to perform orbital correction burns every few days to ensure the orbit remains in the proper range as the pull of gravity and the minuscule friction from the very thin layer of atmosphere still existing in the orbital zone induce friction which results in a net momentum loss, as expected. The air does not have to hit anything to cause movement, as the equal forces in your mouth and lungs is being unbalanced by air leaving in one direction, thereby causing movement in the other direction directly proportional and opposite to the force of the escaping air. This is Newton's Second Law of motion. Because we have a lot of mass when compared to the amount and velocity of the air escaping our mouth, we do not move much, but the movement still occurs. We do not need to fill space or have the escaping air push against any outside force as it is already pushing against the inside of our mouth in an unbalanced reaction. I wish I could draw a diagram and explain it so much clearer. And air pack or can of compressed air being vented to space would and has been proven to cause movement. A bird, however, would not be able to fly normally as they move by pushing against the air with their wings, creating an airfoil and pressure differences to keep them aloft. They are completely different from a rocket in that they utilize their environment to assist with movement, whereas a rocket is environmentally independent. What does anything meaning anything in Hebrew have to do with anything? And you are incorrect there as well. In Hebrew, deceit is רַמָּאוּת or הוֹנָאָה based on the context of which you're talking about, these are spoken phonetically as ramaut or honaah. I don't know what "chi" pics you are talking about, again, I think this might be a language barrier, as I don't think English is your first language, so I'm not able to respond to your claims that they aren't real. We have been and can go through the Van Allen belts. No one has said that we cannot go through them. If you have proof of someone in the scientific community stating this, please provide evidence. There are no contradictions other than the ones being made by people with absolutely no scientific proof or backgrounds using flawed logic and wild claims that do not hold up to the rigors of scientific and mathematical testing. I'm not biased, I simply am able to understand basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics.
    1
  18. In a room with no air movement, you would feel no pressure because our bodies are used to standard atmospheric pressure at approximately sea level, however, that does not mean that it doesn't exist. If I crush your foot in a vice for years until your body is used to it, does that mean it's no longer being crushed in the vice? This type of logic is akin to a 2 year old believing Mommy is gone because she hid her eyes playing peek-a-boo. Forces are still present and can be measured as such. If you feel no air flow around you when you walk or run, if you cannot hear and feel the air around you when you move, then it is you who need help sir, not I. Air and gas and a brick wall and the ground under your feet will all stop things, I agree, because they all have mass, and as such have an effect on each other. The forces you use to push off the ground are no different than the forces the rocket is using to move, they are just in different places. Your legs push against the ground, which propels your body forward in an equal and opposite reaction, while at the same time pushing the earth away from you with the same amount of force. However, the effect on the earth, due to it being much more massive is absolutely minuscule, however the effect on your body is larger and more obvious because of the small mass you have compared to the earth. A rocket works in the same manner, exhaust streams out the nozzle and the net result is the force of it exiting pushes against the opposite wall of the rocket combustion chamber, thereby producing an equal and opposite force from the escaping gasses. The movement of the exhaust is larger and fasted than the movement of the rocket itself due to the increased mass of said rocket. And air pack will move you on the earth if you're on wheels due to the same reasons it would move you in space with microgravity and it's not because of the interactions of the escaping air with the surrounding environment. In fact, the air pack will be more efficient in space due to less frictional resistance from the surrounding air and the friction of the wheels. The friction of the exhausting air hitting other air molecules is not how movement is created, especially since the air itself isn't very dense and as such, the interactions between molecules are extremely low. Who, exactly, went to space and was killed? How are the videos faked? What do you mean their hair would not stand up? Why would it not stand up? There is microgravity, so it would behave similar to a weightless state. Please provide evidence as to where the wires are and what "springing back" you're talking about. What flow should their hair have? These are all legitimate questions and it is on you to provide proof as you are the one claiming something different than that which has been tested time and again and shown to be valid. So, instead of telling me to just "do research", show me your proof. The only things I see making "zero logic" are the arguments you have presented thus far.
    1
  19. You are the one who is confused. The rocket is pushing off of its own interior space due to the velocity of the exhaust gasses leaving the nozzle. I'm not sure how many more times or how much clearer I can state the same thing, without you comprehending the basic nature of how force works. Unfortunately, if you look at your replies, the spelling, grammar, and sentence structure are completely abhorrent, which is why I assumed that English may not be your first language, and was giving you a pass in that respect. Sadly, I think this is what is confusing you even more since what you are trying to convey to me might not be coming across correctly due to the poor use of language. This being a free country, you are free to believe anything you want, no mater how scientifically incorrect it is. However, as I stated previously, when making claims that something that has been tested and proven to work or be true is actually false, you need to back up those claim with scientific proof. In this case, the burden of proof lies on you to substantiate those claims, just as the people in the scientific community had to do when building and designing the rockets in the first place.
    1
  20. And why don't you believe that humans can travel into space?
    1
  21. This is because the igniters that were used for black power type igniters, made for hobby model rockets and designed to be fired on earth where there is an abundance of oxygen to be able to supplement the oxidizer contained in the black powder. Any time NASA has to use a solid rocket motor that will be started in space, they use a much different kind of igniter with an overabundance of oxidizer to ensure reliable ignition. Use of a solid motor in space is rare, except in missiles where long storage times and quick deployment outweigh the drawbacks, as liquid fueled motors are much more powerful and can be easily throttled, controlled, and restarted as needed.
    1
  22. A rocket does not need, nor does it care, about the surrounding atmosphere in order to function and produce thrust.
    1
  23. Rockets don't work by pushing against their surrounding environment. Your point is therefore invalid.
    1
  24. It can be lit in a vacuum using igniters that are properly manufactured so as to be lit in a vacuum. These are for the model rocket hobby and are made to be lit on the ground, hence why they had issues lighting them in the vacuum. Igniters made to be lit in the vacuum of space would have had a larger amount of oxidizer present in the mixture.
    1
  25. What the hell are you going on about? And yes, the earth rotates around the sun, and yes, the movement and gravity of the earth's movements, as well as the other planets, causes the sun to wobble, but the mass of the earth is very small compared with the mass of the sun, so we move easier relative to it.
    1
  26. He didn't say it was in a complete vacuum.....he said it was in a complete vacuum cleaner. ;)
    1
  27. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. This was not a test of a perfect vacuum, but of a vacuum itself in the first few milliseconds of the motor igniting, where you can clearly see movement and know that Newton's Third law still applies, just as anyone with a brain knew it would.
    1
  28. What are you babbling on about? That is completely false on all accounts.
    1
  29. Yes, but the reaction of the escaping gasses well before the flame started is what he was after. The movement caused by those gasses escaping into the chamber when there was still a vacuum present is exactly what the experiment was about. Movement from a burning rocket engine does produce thrust in a vacuum. Newton's Third Law proven.
    1
  30. Yes, that is exactly how a vacuum is defined. Nothing we can reproduce can create a perfect vacuum. As per Wikipedia: "Vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure." So being that this is more of an engineering and applied physics application, the term "vacuum" is perfectly acceptable as there is no one who could possibly believe that a perfect vacuum could be achieved here. That being said, the amount of gas removed by the vacuum pump still results in a partial vacuum low enough to be considered a vacuum for testing purposes. In addition, the volume of the gasses produced by the rocket motor combustion are less than the volume of the chamber, even at a partial vacuum like what was able to be produced. The net result is that even after the burn, there would still be a lower pressure inside the chamber, hence, it would still contain a vacuum, albeit one of less magnitude than there was to start with.
    1
  31. Yes, the vacuum chamber used buy NASA is larger, as it is testing larger motors and equipment. And yes, it can hold a better vacuum, but neither of those invalidates this test. - Was there a partial vacuum? - Yes. - Did the crudely improvised, highly inaccurate, force gauge produce a reading indicating thrust? - Yes. - Was that reading taken in the milliseconds after motor ignition, well before the expanding gasses being released from the nozzle had any chance to have an appreciable affect on the quality of the vacuum? - Yes. So if the criteria of the experiment were met, and a result was obtained, how is it not a valid test? Even an amateur experiment, if constraints are followed and the results obtained can be replicated by others in a peer-review of said findings, is still a completely valid test.
    1
  32. Rockets don't push against their own exhaust or any other atmosphere for that matter, they use Newton's third law to move in the direction opposite of where the hot expanding gasses are able to exit because of the unequal forces pushing against the inner chamber wall opposite of where the nozzle is positioned. In fact, all rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum as there is less drag from the atmosphere on them.
    1
  33. You are correct in that the law at work is an equal and opposite reaction, but you are mistaken in what the system is that is involved. The reaction/opposite reaction occurs as a result of the expanding gasses escaping at high velocity out the nozzle of the rocket. This reaction of the ejection of mass away from the center of the combustion chamber imparts an equal and opposite reaction at the wall of the combustion chamber directly opposite of the nozzle. The force imparted there pushes against that wall and produces movement of the combustion chamber, thereby also imparting force onto the system as a whole. This force must not only move the mass of the system, but must also overcome any external forces, such as friction from any surrounding atmosphere, in order to produce net thrust in the direction away from the nozzle opening. This is why most rockets move slowly at first and then gather speed as more and more momentum is gained from the constant force produced by the mass ejection of material through the nozzle.
    1
  34. People have been to space, we are not in a closed system, and our atmosphere is constantly being lost to space. Try again.
    1
  35. I have done the research and I do know. We have put 12 men into space as defined by them being outside LEO, we have put many more into space as defined by the Karmen line, the internationally accepted line at which our atmosphere ends and space begins. This line is set as 100 km above sea level, however our actual atmosphere stretches much further than this, simply thinning out as it goes with a continual loss of some of it to space. However, using the Karmen line as a boundary, even the astronauts and cosmonauts aboard the ISS are in space, as they are orbiting between 330 and 435 km above sea level. This has been shown and proven time and again. The burden of proof is not on me to prove something that has been done time and again for over 50 years, the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence as to your wild claims.
    1
  36. Why would any crater be seen? The descent module is used as the launching platform for the ascent module that lifts back off of the lunar surface. In every video I've seen of the ascent module disconnecting and launching itself up, there is a clear flame as it disconnects and leaves the decent module below, then as the camera pans up to follow it, you can clearly see the orange flame of he hypergolic engines used on it. These engines used hydrazine as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer This mixture is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite upon contact with each other, so no external ignition source is needed. In fact, you can see a good view of it in this video from the Apollo 17 mission (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Ap17-ascent.ogv).
    1
  37. A rocket doesn't work by pushing off the surrounding atmosphere, so the vacuum being compromised after the rocket began to fire is inconsequential as thrust was still shown in the first few seconds after ignition before the vacuum had a chance to be overtaken by the escaping exhaust gasses.
    1
  38. It was glue, to seal the nozzle. And just the fact that you understand the reaction and that the rocket motor contains its own oxidizer, you should know that, either way, Newton's Third Law would apply, in a vacuum or not.
    1
  39. Which god? Your god? Someone else's god? Who is keeping that score? I'd like to know as I have some questions on the rules of how things are scored here.
    1
  40. Yes, motion will occur because rockets don't work by pushing off the surrounding atmosphere, but instead of propelled via mass ejection of the expanding gasses out the nozzle and a high velocity and the difference in net pressure forces acting on the combustion chamber wall directly opposite of the nozzle as all of the other areas in the combustion chamber have forces which cancel each other out. Please learn some basic physics.
    1
  41. Incorrect as rockets do not work by pushing against the surrounding atmosphere. Try again.
    1
  42. Yes, things can and do burn in space.
    1
  43. A good flare will burn in a vacuum, or underwater, because it contains its own oxidizer, just like a SRM.
    1
  44. The pressure changes because the volume of the gas contained in a space decreases, meaning that the volume of oxygen changes, along with nitrogen and other elements that comprise "air" at sea level here on earth. So you are incorrect when you say it has nothing to do with oxygen. In either case, you could see the same thing if you were in an environment of pure nitrogen and lit the flare, it should still burn due to having its own oxidizer. Not all flares contain an oxidizer, so it's possible you were testing using one of these, which would explain your findings.
    1
  45. You are incorrect in thinking that a rocket needs an atmosphere around it in which to burn. It is not like a fire and having carbon dioxide onto a fire because that fire is not in a confined space. If you have a solid rocket motor, for example, and light it, even on earth, then try to extinguish it using a fire extinguisher, you will not be successful due to the self-contained oxygen-rich atmosphere inside the rocket motor itself. The fast moving exhaust out of the nozzle and high pressure contained inside the motor body prevents any CO2 from entering and disrupting the combustion process. This is simple physics and chemistry at work. Furthermore, the more commonly used propellants once something is already in space (higher than 100 KM above the earth's surface at sea level) are hypergolic propellants that ignite upon contact with each other with no external ignition source. These would ignite and burn no matter if there is an atmosphere present or not.
    1
  46. I still am unsure of why you are comparing a rocket motor to a flare, they are NOT THE SAME!! Even so, I don't care if you have carbon dioxide or nothing, the rocket has it's own oxygen present in the oxidizer and can support combustion completely self-contained. You truly aren't getting that there does not need to be any oxygen present EXTERNAL to the motor because more than enough oxygen is already contained INTERNAL to the motor. Get it now? Flames, as you are trying to describe them, rely on an EXTERNAL supply of oxygen to support combustion. Rocket motors *DO NOT HAVE THAT LIMITATION*.
    1
  47. The Stoichiometry doesn't come into play as the atmosphere inside the burning motor is the proper mix for combustion to occur. The ratio is already pre-mixed, which is why the oxidizer and the fuel are put together to make the solid motor fuel. As for your latest response, I fail to see what your first line in that response "You can't be that dense? You do know what happens in a vacuum don't you?" is ever referring to? The fuel/oxidizer in the solid rocket motor is in solid form, bound together, so if you're trying to suggest that it somehow evacuates the chamber into the vacuum of space, then you are the one who is dense. As for once combustion occurs, the solid mater is transformed, via the combustion process, directly into hot, expanding gasses, which exit the combustion area through the nozzle and into the vacuum of space. That being said, solid rocket motors are usually used for boost purposes and are jettisoned before reaching the full vacuum of space, but even so, they could and do continue to burn there, being even more efficient as there is less drag on the vehicle to which they are attached. Your next line, talking again about oxygen in space, is once again pointless as there does not need to be oxygen in space for the motor to combust. This is, as I stated several times before, but which you either don't seem to understand, or care not to listen to, is because the motor *caries it own oxygen with it in the form of the oxidizer*. What I think, or to be more clear, what I know happens due to the pressures and the vacuum of space is that thrust is produced via the stream of hot gasses exiting the combustion area via the nozzle into the expansive vacuum of space due to Newton's 3rd law. Also, to be clear, the booster never has to "open" to expel it's gasses, the booster is always "open" as the nozzles to not have flaps or covers, that would be a technical point of failure, and could cause catastrophic issues as a solid rocket motor cannot be shut down or extinguished once it is lit, again, due to the overabundance of oxygen and the fuel already contained therein. So try again. I don't believe everything I'm told. I perform experiments and understand how science, physics, and chemistry work.
    1
  48. What does a high pressure hose and a cigarette have to do with anything? Please explain how that has any bearing on the conversation at hand.
    1
  49. When an aircraft window breaks at high altitude, do the people immediately die? No, it's because the pressure loss is mitigated by the fact that the internal atmosphere is being drawn out of a small hole, same thing in the rocket engine, and the pressure and nozzle flow dynamics ensure that the flow of material out cannot exceed that which is being produced, thereby a net positive pressure internal, so try again. Perhaps if the plane in your analogy had a way to create a very large pressurized environment many times the capacity of the internal cabin, it would be somewhat similar to the rocket motor, but still not quite the same. However, if this were the case, you would see a dramatic instability in the handling of the plane due to the immense off-center thrust being applied by the pressure of the gas exiting the interior structure and causing the plane to move in the direction opposite the broken window. In a rocket engine, the oxygen and fuel are constantly being consumed when lit, so there is no time, nor outside environment that could strip either away before combustion. The fuel and oxygen are both in solid form, so tell me again how this is being dissipated? As I said before, tell me again how this has anything to do with a high pressure hose and a cigarette. I'm only guessing you're trying to use the cigarette as out "rocket motor" and the high pressure hose as....... no clue, as there is nothing that would be directing a stream of anything at the rocket motor, and even if there was, the rocket motor would have combustion occurring internally, not externally, so once again, bad analogy. Care to try again?
    1
  50. The reason I asked if the people die is because, if the oxygen was immediately dissipated, as you claim happens in a vacuum, then no one would have time to don oxygen masks, as the oxygen already present in the cabin would immediately be lost. My second sentence, "No, it's because the pressure loss is mitigated by the fact that the internal atmosphere is being drawn out of a small hole, same thing in the rocket engine, and the pressure and nozzle flow dynamics ensure that the flow of material out cannot exceed that which is being produced, thereby a net positive pressure internal, so try again." only serves to prove my point in that your argument about oxygen being lost is completely flawed and you have no further basis with which to argue your ridiculous theory. Sounds like you're giving up because I continue to re-state the same basic facts and principles that rocketry was based on even as you continue to try and use analogy after bad analogy to prove your claim, something that is simply not scientifically possible.
    1