/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11688812
Sorry OP, rockets don't work in space. When you use logic, reason, and actual real science, you realize rockets only work (definition of work: to propel themselves forward) inside an atmosphere. This means they don't work in space. Sorry to shatter any illusions you may've had.

The plain truth is they don't and can't work in a real vacuum.

So will a rocket which "works in space" (propels the craft forward) ever be invented? No. No such technology can ever exist. Any claims of such tech existing is a fraud and a lie. You want to believe in a fraud and a lie?

>inb4 you parrot "newtons 3rd law!" like an NPC without any thought involved
That law isn't in dispute here. Quoting it to "prove" rockets "work in space" shows you don't grasp the fundamental problem here. The 3rd law is 100% correct. When asteroids floating in the vacuum of space crashes into each other, the 3rd law applies. Likewise, the law applies to objects interacting on the ground on Earth, underwater, and in the sky. The 3rd law is real, but it doesn't "do" anything for a rocket engine fired in a perfect vacuum.

You see, the atmosphere gets thinner at higher elevation until it disappears completely (out in space). That's the issue is here! And you can't get around that issue. Parroting "newtons's 3rd law!" or throwing math equations around, doesn't magically make the issue go away. That's just you avoiding to deal with reality. Man up and stop avoiding reality.

If you're currently under the "rockets work in space! xd!" spell they cast on you through the entertainment industry and educational system (the indoctrination system), and you want to break free from that spell and shatter the illusion - then see these two educational videos (they play inside your browser):

First vid: https://files.catbox.moe/dl9ldw.webm
Second (also important): https://files.catbox.moe/so2rrt.mp4

Once you know that stuff - then you know beyond any doubt rocket technology will never be viable outside of Earth.

>>11688876
And OP, if you have a short attention span and you therefore have difficulty following a scientific presentation in video format, here is an illustration which can assist you in understanding that rockets indeed do not work in space. You're welcome. You're now ready to take your first steps towards embracing the real world.

No, our government are brainlets that give any promising space-related projects precisely 0 funding or help at all. The entire UK space agency has a budget of merely £300m ffs

>>11688903
Don't feel bad about it. That just means the UK spends less money on the theme park presentation.

>>11688903
The government gave reaction engines £60m. Also they've had investment from big military contractors.

>>11688903
>You now remember Black Arrow

>>11688812
Brought by BAE so we won't see shit for ~30 years until it's declasified.
My money is on hypersonic cruise missiles.

>>11689000
Hypersonic missiles exist already and use scramjet.

Which is superior to the precooler meme this engine relies on

>>11689017
>lower ISP
>lower max altitude
>lower max ground speed for same airspeed
Scramjets are cool but this would be better in every way short of cost, and we know how much governments care about cost when it comes to arms.

>>11688812
>Will this air-breathing engine revolutionize spaceflight (where there is no appreciable atmosphere)
no

>>11689017
>hypersonic missiles exist already
not really
>and use scramjet
lol, no
current hypersonics use rockets, and also are called ballistic missiles

>>11689184
It switches between air breathing and using liquid oxygen

>>11688969
the thought is always present

>>11688890
>Newton's third law.exe

>>11688876
I'll need to hand it to you, I have never heard of this thesis and you nearly got me. But it's pretty simple: In the rocket engine, where the fire is, you have got a combustion, an explosion. The fuel mixture rapidly expands in every direction, except the direction of the rocket because, well, thats where the wall of the rocket is. So the combustion pushes the rocket away from itself to expand further.

>>11688917
I just want us to have a spaceport already

>>11690024
it will only be useful for spy satellites, you know that right

>>11690021
report and ignore please, it's copypasta that he's been spamming

>>11688876
i know this is bait but if you just look up online "rockets in vacuum" you can find rockets working in a vacuum and propelling. bunch of different youtubers show this unless they are all part of the conspiracy.

>>11688876
b8 and saved

>>11688812
Not if Starship works. SSTOs just have shit payload mass no matter what.

The engine tech might be applied somewhere else though.

>>11688903

Why would the government fund what they know is archaic technology?

Literally fucking fireworks...

>>11691299
rockets are just controlled explosions

>>11691121
Like the UK can afford spy satellites

>>11691252
The problem with starship is risk. Rockets are inherently more risky than conventional planes, which is especially a factor when it comes to passengers.

Also noise and scalability. You could have a bunch of SSTOs operate in close proximity from an airport, which could be near a city. Starship needs masses of space and is loud as all fuck.

Maybe for delivering payloads to space starship will be more efficient. For passengers it's not efficient at all.

>>11691866
how the fuck are SSTO rockets less noisy than TSTO rockets? If anything, they'd be worse, because they need to be bigger in order to lift the same payload mass

>>11691936
The engine in OP is a conventional jet engine. It then uses a precooler to get really fast, and switches to liquid oxygen to become a rocket when there's no atmosphere. So it only gets super loud when it's already in the air.

>>11688969
>As of 2018, the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability.All other countries that have developed such a capability have retained it either through their own space programme or, in the case of France, through its involvement in the Ariane programme.
fuck me

>>11688890
You forgot your trollface

>>11691135
Appealing to such videos is meaningless as those chambers rarely achieve a proper vacuum, and in every case (100% of the videos) the rocket itself is a huge percentage of the chamber so when it's ignited the inside of chamber is no longer a vacuum. A rocket in real space doesn't fill up most of the universe, it's tiny and insignificant.

>>11694421
space isnt a perfect vacuum. why does having a large percentage of the chamber being rocket matter/

>>11689999
Right, it proves rockets cannot propel in space.

>>11694426
Yes but the vacuum achieved in the chambers in the YT videos is much less than in actual space. And when they ignite their rockets the atmosphere goes up a lot in that tiny chamber. So in the very few videos which aren't cut and stitched together, and they get a rocket to fire and also move inside a chamber, well it's not moving inside of a vacuum anymore.

>>11694426
>>11691135

Three debunkings of Cody's videos:

https://files.catbox.moe/t8q49t.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/b5o2he.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/c7e80m.mp4

>>11694450

No atmospheric pressure, zero atmospheric density = no thrust. It truly is that simple.

These videos, in addition to the ones already posted >>11694450 and here >>11688876 may help you understand:

https://files.catbox.moe/7e3whr.mp4

https://files.catbox.moe/vquxds.mp4

>>11689999
>>11694318

No atmospheric pressure, zero atmospheric density = no thrust. It truly is that simple.

These videos, in addition to the ones already posted >>11694450 and here >>11688876 may help you understand:

https://files.catbox.moe/7e3whr.mp4

https://files.catbox.moe/vquxds.mp4

>>11694468
describe in your own words what conservation of momentum means to you.

>>11694450
i know you are just trolling. rockets that go up in space basically create their own atmosphere inside. thats what cody was trying to show with the plastic cup. basically they mix their shit in side this thing called a fire chamber and then have an internal explosion that pushes mass from the explosion everywhere. this explosion pushes the sides of the explosion chamber. on the sides it counter itself. but on the top it pushes up but cant push down because there is a hole and just leaves without pushing the top thus there is net force up. so the rocket moves up getting push by the internal explosion. this happens in the fire chamber. its not that hard its kind of sad people unironically think this is impossible.

>>11694489
mr schitzo just doesn't understand that a rocket moves because of conservation of momentum not because it's "pushing on something"

>>11688876
>sit in an office chair
>pick up a textbook
>throw the textbook away from you
do you really think the book pushing against the air is what caused you to roll back?

>>11688812
>Will this meme engine revolutionise spaceflight?
Doubt it. It's use is highly specialized (launching to LEO only), and it's taking so long that fully reusable TSTO's could completely overshadow it.

>>11688969
F

>>11694489
Schizo btfo

>go to apply for internship at sabre
>internships open at x date, please check back later
>x date rolls around
>same message
>keep checking every day for like 3 months
>same message
>leave it a bit
>check again
>internship applications are now closed, please wait until next year
fuck sabre i hope they fail

>>11694723
your mistake was not constantly email harassing them anyway and then grabbing them by the nozzle like a chad

>>11694752
Email harassing doesn't even work anymore, I have tonnes of contacts high up at shit like BAE and Teledyne but they don't have any power over recruitment, that's all done by some ai overlord in birmingham now

>>11688876
Describe conservation of momentum.

>>11688876
So anon what design of free energy machine are you using to create extra momentum from nothing?

>>11688876
Describe what happens if you float in space and throw a rock in your schizo delusion. Either nothing which voids the 3rd law or you get propelled back. Rocks or very fast expanding gasses do the same shit just one does it faster.

>>11688876
there is no real vacum? also can you not take the atmosphere with you? aka drop anutreno bomb somehow harness nutrinos for propulsion ?

>>11694773
just memeing lad, I was in fact
>this
close to applying for oneweb like 3 months ago lmao, it feels like dodging the titanic