Myths about rockets in outer space

Myths about rockets in outer space

Two myths will be debunked.  The first myth is that rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space.  The second myth is that NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

First myth : Rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space

It has been claimed by some people that rockets can not work in a vacuum and therefore rockets can not work in outer space because outer space is a vacuum

The claim is that in a perfect vacuum there is no medium or material for the rocket gas to push against to move the rocket

It has been claimed by others that rockets would work in a perfect vacuum because of conservation of momentum even if there is no medium for the rocket gas to push against

In reality the gas could push against the solid rocket itself even in a perfect vacuum

Some  of the gas could rebound against the solid rocket and then travel in the opposite direction of the rocket in an elastic collision, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas could hit the solid rocket and continue moving in the same direction and speed as the rocket in an inelastic collission, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas might move in the same direction as the rocket but in a slower speed than the rocket and never hit the rocket, that gas would not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas might stay still and not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas could move away from the rocket.  This gas would be argued by some to contribute to the momentum of the rocket an equal amount of impulse to the impulse it experiences leaving the rocket but in the opposite direction.  Others might say but that is impossible without a medium or object to push against or off of or to collide or come in contact with.  But some of this gas might have collided against other portions of gas in a chain of collissions leading to collissions of gas against the rocket.  Those other portions of gas might have pushed this gas away from the rocket while being pushed by this gas towards the rocket.  These other portions of gas would have come from the rocket fuel just like this portion of gas even before considering the medium of the "vacuum" of outer space not being a perfect vacuum

Gas that does not directly contribute to rocket speed might still indirectly contribute to rocket speed through interaction with or elastic collission with some of the gas that does contribute to rocket speed.  Gas "molecues" can interact with other gas "molecues" through other means then elastic and inelastic collissions according to some theories.  These interactions theoretically occur when one "molecue" attracts or repels another "molecue" at a distance without being close enough to touch the other molecue.  The gas that does not seem to contribute to rocket speed provides a medium for the gas that does contribute to rocket speed to push against through elastic collissions and or interaction

In reality a perfect vacuum has never been observed in outer space or anywhere else according to educated mainstream scientific sources.  So, there would always be a medium, other than the rocket, for the gas ejected from a rocket to push against, as long as the rocket is not in a perfect vacuum

According to sources outside the mainstream scientific community outer space does not exist at all.  If those sources are correct there still would be no perfect vacuum in outer space for a rocket to travel in because outer space would not exist

Liquid, gas, and plasma states of matter are fluids

A rocket can also work through using a liquid and or plasma instead of or in addition to a gas and not a gas alone through similar principles

Another claim is that rockets can not work in a vacuum because rocket fuel uses oxygen and there is no oxygen or not enough oxygen in outer space, but oxygen in the O2 form, can be mixed into rocket fuel, along with "molecues" made of carbon and or hydrogen and or other elements that would combust or chemically interact with the Oxygen.  There are also other types of fuel that do not rely on chemical reactions with oxygen that can be used.  For example, any sufficiently hot exothermic chemical reaction that produces a fluid as a product without oxygen.  For another example, heating a fluid hot enough should work to contribute to rocket speed without a chemical reaction at all.  But that begs the question, how do you heat the fluid without a chemical reaction

Can a Rocket Fly in a Vacuum Chamber?

The Action Lab

 youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug&t=294s

http://web.archive.org/web/20200614150440/youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

Second myth : NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

Even though rockets should be able to work in imperfect vacuums, the footage of NASA launching rockets I have seen show the rockets going on arc shaped trajectory that would lead back down to "planet" earth instead of traveling at escape velocity toward outer space.

Assumption : I will assume NASA videos of rockets were taken from less than 230 miles away because you can not see a object the size of a Saturn V rocket or smaller from more than 230 miles without zoom or magnification.  If the rocket smoke or exhaust is wider than the rocket is long and you are viewing the smoke but not the rocket this assumption might not be reasonable.  If intense light from burning the fuel somehow results in a way to see things at a farther distance than you should be able to based on this type of calculation then this assumption might also not be reasonable.  Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume footage of NASA rocket launches is from less than 230 miles away because 230 miles is the width of the entire State of Georgia. That would mean less than 230 miles away horizontally because it is 230 miles at a diagonal formed by a horizontal and vertical distance component.  

When you consider that the longest dimension is viewable from about 230 miles but the second longest dimension is not the viewable distance should actually be much shorter than 230 miles if at least 2 dimensions of the rocket must form a large enough angle for the human eye to see without zoom or magnification.  

I am aware the cameras might have a different minimum angle an object must be to be recorded as a pixel but if people have seen the downward arc of rocket paths live in person without electronic devices, telescopes, or other means of magnification than my argument I will be making that NASA rockets never reach an altitude as high as 230 miles before going back down to the "planet" earth in less than an hour still holds

The sagital plane is composed of the directions up, down, forward and bavkwards.  The coronal plane is composed of the directions, left, right, forward and backward.  I believe that some sources have claimed the smallest angle the human eye can see is different in the sagital plane than the transverse plane, but I do not have access to those sources at the time of writing this article.  Similar math could be done getting different results using a different smallest viewable angle.  But ultimately the main points of the argument that the rockets in certain NASA videos are coming back down to "planet" earth in less than an hour will still hold with different quantities.  

Width 230 miles

http://web.archive.org/web/20120525092633/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)

Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

NASA launched 13 Saturn Vs from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida with no loss of crew or payload. It remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status and still holds the record for the heaviest launch vehicle payload.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

Assume the straight length of the rocket can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

363 feet / X = 0.0003 radians

X = 363 feet / 0.0003 radians = 1210000 feet

1210000 feet / 5280 feet per mile = about 229 miles

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%3D+(+363+%2F+0.0003+)+%2F+5280&ia=calculator

Assumption : The earth has a claimed radius of approximately 4000 miles and a claimed approximate shape of a sphere

Assumption : The difference in angle the velocity vector of a rocket in polar coordinates appears to be going in radians by two different viewers is adjusted by the arc distance between the viewers divided by the radius of the earth in cases similar to the example

Imagine two people are viewing a rocket.  One person is directly below the rocket amd the other is a camera person far away from the rocket.  Both are standing at sea level.

If each individual used a polar coordinate system in which positive 90 degrees is up and negative 90 degrees is down and 0 and 180 degrees are horizontal.  Where down is the direction toward the center of the earth from where they are standing.  Each person would have a different down direction.  The difference in angles between there down directions in radians would be the arclength between them and the other observer divided by the radius of the earth.  That would be the difference in angles between their two coordinate systems for measuring the velocity of objects in polar coordinates. 

The origin of these two different polar coordinate systems when used for measuring position could be at the feet of each observer being different for each one or alternatively they could both use the center of the earth for an origin or perhaps something else, the chosen origin would matter for measuring position of objects but not for measuring velocity of objects in such a case.

Assume the arc length between the two viewers or observers can be treated the approximately the same as the straight horizintal distance between them after rounding so you do not have to worry about which of those two distances are being used when measuring the distance between observers based on a map or computerized map

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

The camera person is standing at a different angle than the person standing under the rocket. 

If perpendicular to the ground is 90 degrees and vertical for the camera person than for the person under the rocket that same direction will be 90 degress plus or minus the Arc Length / Radius in their polar coordinate system

Example

The direction down for two viewers standing 230 miles apart is different by less than 4 degrees.

There is less than a 4 degree difference in polar coordinate systems when measuring velocity of objects they observe for two viewers 230 miles apart.  

230 miles arc / 4000 miles radius = 0.0575 radians

0.0575 radians = about 3.29 degrees < 4 degrees

For a camera person standing at sea level 230 miles horizontally away from the rocket

And a second person standing at sea level 0 miles horizontally away from the rocket

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 90 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 86 and 94 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 0 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between negative 4 and positive 4 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 45 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 41 and 49 degrees

Conclusion from assumptions

NASA rockets downard arc can not be explained as an illusiom caused by the "curvature" of the earth 

This is because that would change the velocity vector of the rockets as expressed in polar coordinates by less than 4 degrees which is too little.  If the rockets look like they are going a direction that would be down then they probably really are going down unless an adjustment of less than 4 degrees is enough to not make them look like they are not going down.

A counter argument to this is that objects at the same height viewed from farther away look like a lower angle which can create the illusion of a lower height from the perspective of an observer.

NASA rockets downward arc can not be explained by the spin of the earth.

Whether or not the earth is spinning or what speed and direction it is spinning is not relevant to whether or not the rockets are getting closer or farther away from the center of the "planet" earth

If the rockets have a downward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going closer to the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

If the rockets have a upward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going farther away from the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

Rocket Downward Arcs showing the fakeness of NASA

A saturn V rocket can not be seen from more than 230 miles therefore the angle of the velocity in polar coordinates is below 0 degrees after compensating for the less than 4 degrees difference in measured angle between two viewers as described earlier.  This indicates the rocket is traveling down closer to the earth from the point of view of someone standing below the rocket.  This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this rocket did not go into orbit nor achieve escape velocity and will return to the "planet" earth within less than 1 hour after launch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905102757/http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1509/launchMUOS4_deep.jpg

Atlas V Rising

Image Credit & Copyright: Mike Deep

Explanation: Early morning risers along Florida's Space Coast, planet Earth, were treated to a launch spectacle on September 2nd. Before dawn an Atlas V rocket rose into still dark skies carrying a US Navy communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station into Earth orbit. This minutes long exposure follows the rocket's arc climbing eastward over the Atlantic. As the rocket rises above Earth's shadow, its fiery trail becomes an eerie, noctilucent exhaust plume glinting in sunlight. Of course, the short, bright startrail just above the cloud bank is Venus rising, now appearing in planet Earth's skies as the brilliant morning star.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905120625/https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150905.html

Counter Argument

There is a counterargument the mainstream narrative supporters might make.  If the rockets are traveling "horizontally" away from the viewer at a constant height such as if they were in orbit then as they got "horizontally" farther away from the viewer as an illusion they might appear lower down due to a change in angle even though they are at the same height or altitude.  

Response to counter argument :  Objects seen up to the point of illusionarily or really down  have low credibility of having reached low earth orbit altitudes in order to go into low earth orbit or launch another object into low earth orbit

I will make an assumption that a satellite would be smaller than a rocket that launches a satellite and if a satellite or rocket is seen that means it is at or below the height at which it is too high to be seen.  If the object is seen throughout it's entire movement arc until it starts going down then the maximum height or altitude it achieved is less than it's maximum viewable distance.  This can create a limit on the credibility of how high NASA claimed to launch certain objects that can be seen going down.

longest object dimension / maximum viewable distance =  0.0003 radians

for the person standing below the object the maximum viewable distance is the maximum vuewable height or altitude

but for the cameraman the maximum viewable distance is lower based on the pythagorean theoeom

This is problematic because satelites in low earth orbit have a longest dimension much smaller than the Saturn V rocket's world record longest dimension and are so small they can not be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit.  Yet objects are clearly seen in pictures going downward, and if those objects whether rockets are satellites are small enough their visibility indicates they never achieved a sufficient height for low earth orbit

The Saturn V rocket loses pieces becomong shorter in stages so even a rocket that started out large enough to be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit altitude, might not be visible at low orbital height after part loss is considered

Maybe they will say the rockets do indeed come back down but launch a satelite off them into orbit before coming back down and the launched satellite is not seen because it is too small and goes higher than the rocket but the rocket is seen because it is larger and does not go at as high an altitude as the satellite it launches

But, this explanation can not solve the problem if rockets that allegedly escape orbit, allegedly exceeding escape velocity, also have paths that make them look like they will come right back down to earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Bonus Question : Do NASA rockets based on video footage appear to travel slower than the fastest military aircraft in air show videos?  I am not talking about the "official" published speed which you can not confirm by observation.  I am talking about what you could estimate with your eyes looking at the position of objects relative to landmarks at different time stamps on video recordings.  Do the fastest military rockets travel faster than the fastest NASA rocket launches?  Is it plausible that military rockets and or military aircraft designed for combat travel faster than NASA rockets that travel to the moon, but the military rockets and vehicles are not accidentally ejected from the earth never to come back?

Bonus estimate of the rockets location : At that time the rocket is at it's highest height it will have traveled approximately half the distance it will travel horizontally ignoring air friction.  This assumption is unimportant to the main point and might not be true due to the variability in the direction and amount of force provided by rocket fuel as a function of time and due to force being provided by rocket fuel after the rocket is launched and not just to produce initial starting velocity.  If you assume the rocket fuel produces less force at any moment in time after it's highest height than before reaching it's highest height and produces no force sometime before it lands then the rocket fuel might produce enough force to exceed terminal velocity from air resitance in the earlier parts of the trajectory, but not at the later parts of the teajectory.  So, the rocket will travel faster and therefore farther horizontally before reaching it's highest height than after reaching it's highest height.  The rocket might travel farther than I mentioned with the use of a deployed parachute but that is unlikely because the parachute would slow down it's horizontal velocity not just it's downward vertical velocity.

  

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 20