> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move > lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". > A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
Absolutely true.
The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel for the rocket.
In fact, a rocket engine works *better* in vacuum.
Jeff
-- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>> creating force in a vacuum?
> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
> nothing to do with air friction.
since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words he doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with the two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of his own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:17:52 +0200, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
You entire argument is based on the fallacy that a rocket has to push
against something external. Like the air. In real fact the rocket is
pushing against the combustion chamber oppostie to where there is
nothing to push against. Very, very simple - easy to demonstrate,
even easier to prove with mathematics and logic. However it is a
scenario you will not look at or consider due to your "belief" (did
you know there is always a "lie" in "belief") in that a rocket pushes
against the atmosphere. No dear Warhol, the less atmosphere the
harder the combustion pushes against the opposite side which is at the
bottom of the rocket and the better the rocket works.
Now let's have the religious harangue you usually burst forth with
once your cherished "beliefs" are shown to be false.
Eugene L Griessel
'Hey, there's a gigantic wooden horse outside and all the Greeks
have left. Let's bring it inside!' Not a formula for long-term
survival. Now if they had formed a task force to study the Trojan
Horse and report back to a committee, everyone wouldn't have been
massacred. Who says middle management is useless?
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:17:52 +0200, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Op 9-4-2012 3:35, jonathan schreef:
>> "Warhol"<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlt53m$cvk$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>>> creating force in a vacuum?
>> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
>> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
>> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
>> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
>> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
>> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
>> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
>> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
>> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
>> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
>> nothing to do with air friction.
>since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the >facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in >the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words >he doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with >the two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of >his own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
>but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
>>Op 9-4-2012 3:35, jonathan schreef:
>>> "Warhol"<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jlt53m$cvk$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>>>> creating force in a vacuum?
>>> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
>>> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
>>> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
>>> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
>>> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
>>> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
>>> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
>>> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
>>> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
>>> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
>>> nothing to do with air friction.
>>since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the >>facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in >>the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words >>he doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with >>the two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of >>his own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
>>but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
>This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
>could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
>contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
>vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
>that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
>back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
>would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
>order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
>action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
>gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
>to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
>gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
He could always read this
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm should be simple enough - to anyone who WANTS to understand. He
doesn't. Either wilfully stupid or obstinate. Or it's obviously part
of the world conspiracy that involves millions who do nothing but
devote their lives to trying to fool just Warhol. If that isn't a
grossly inflated opinion of his worth then nothing is.
Eugene L Griessel
A conference is just an admission that you want somebody to join
you in your troubles.
> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does:
> "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the
> other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the
> plane.
>> Rockets CANNOT work in space
>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>> one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>> to push the rocket.
>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to move or to push against.
> This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
> could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
> contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
> vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
> that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
> back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
> would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
> order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
> action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
> gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
> to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
> gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out of hand.
>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
>> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
>> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
> Absolutely true.
> The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> for the rocket.
> In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.
> Jeff
*prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...
*but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start twisting words sonny jeff.
the 'essay' would be no good for space travel.
although would be good if you just want to rock back and forth like many do ;)
> Op 9-4-2012 3:35, jonathan schreef:
>> "Warhol"<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlt53m$cvk$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>>> creating force in a vacuum?
>> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
>> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
>> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
>> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
>> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
>> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
>> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
>> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
>> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
>> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
>> nothing to do with air friction.
Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
give them the historic news~
If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
your business. But some advice, you might not want
to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
and dates etc.
> since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the > facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in > the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words he > doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with the > two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of his > own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
> but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does:
>> "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the
>> other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the
>> plane.
>>> Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>> one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
>>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>>> to push the rocket.
>>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
>"*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However, in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you idiot.
>does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman. Which is what you just raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't either ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't be.)
>ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went >up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*... >no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the >edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to >move or to push against.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:28:14 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
<moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However, >in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
Yep - so should we all. BUt he really is such a deliciously easy
target to mock, ridicule and scoff at. In fact he does all those
things to himself, we just have to nudge and bump occasionally.
Why anyone would want to expose himself to the world as such a fool is
a good question. He really is depriving a village of it's idiot.
> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha
> ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
> up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
> down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
> 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
> ain't no mass to move or to push against.
This is why muslums are mired in the 13th century.
> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
> give them the historic news~
> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
> your business. But some advice, you might not want
> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
> and dates etc.
Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
worry about girls, jobs and friends?
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:04:29 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/9/2012 12:28 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
>> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman.
>Warhole emulates a strawman here every day.
>With the thoughts he'd be thinkin
>Warhole could be another Lincoln
>If he only had a brain....
He has a better brain than the rest of us. Most of his brain cells are
still like a new car sitting in the dealer's show room...new and
fresh...never been used, yet.
>> This chair thought experiment would apply in deep space if the person
>> could survive the vacuum conditions. For a similar thought experiment,
>> contemplate a large loaded gun being somehow lost or dropped into the
>> vacuum of deep space, then after it had floated free form the source
>> that dropped it, let it somehow fire a bullet. Would the gun "kick"
>> back as the bullet accelerated through the gun's bore? You bet it
>> would! But, the bullet doesn't NEED any atmosphere to press against in
>> order to push the gun in the opposite direction. It is all a matter of
>> action-reaction. The bullet is accelerated in one direction and the
>> gun is accelerated in the opposite direction. The bullet is analogous
>> to the gasses being expelled by a rocket engine in deep space and the
>> gun is analogous to the rocket. Gordon
> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
> of hand.
this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
Why name it Atlantis? anyway,the missions are fake as fuck.
nobody but NASA psy-ops see it fly or floating above... Almost 30 years of drifting in orbit doing "experiments"? WTF were they experimenting with? How rat shit reacts to zero gravity?(and how do they obtain zero G?) Who gives a shit about that? How many mundane, useless experiments can you do? All the video we've ever been fed was nothing more that bullshit, like drinking water out of the air, floating around the shuttle and eating dinner.
btw why don't astronut fly like birds when they are in space???
Now you will be claiming it is in space? lol. I say it is fraudulent of them calling it the international SPACE Station when it is not in space. It is like making a pudding in Africa and calling it a Yorkshire pudding.
I know the ISS exists but it is not in space and the shuttle is a normal plastic airplane... so you are in error. If they were in space there would not be any contact with the crew because radio waves don't work in vacuum and they would all be dead from sun heat radiation. So the communication satellites are bullets too then by your logic .
>> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
>> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
>> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
>> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
>> give them the historic news~
>> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
>> your business. But some advice, you might not want
>> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
>> and dates etc.
> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
>>>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
>>> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
>>> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
>>> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does:
>>> "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the
>>> other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the
>>> plane.
>>>> Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>>> Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space
>>>> one of the biggest hoaxes of all time!
>>>> rocket propulsion cannot work in space.
>>>> you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the
>>>> propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has
>>>> to push the rocket.
>>>> but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed
>>>> from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum
>>>> (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the
>>>> rocket/vehicle itself.
>>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something
>>>> similar creating force in a vacuum?
>> "*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move...
> I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot.
> However, in the hopes you don't lead others astray...
> See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you
> idiot.
>> does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit?
> Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman. Which is what you
> just raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't
> either ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't
> be.)
WOW... well why don't you do that... ha ha ha losers is that all you have to say... I heard that song ten thousand times... and they all keep flying like flies behind my shit...
>> ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went
>> up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come
>> down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is
>> 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there
>> ain't no mass to move or to push against.
>>>> can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar
>>>> creating force in a vacuum?
>>> Try this experiment for yourself. Put a chair with wheels on
>>> a smooth floor, so that is moves easily. Sit down on the
>>> chair with a bowling ball or other heavy object in your
>>> hands. Then suddenly extend your arms outward with
>>> the mass. You'll see the chair moves backwards, and
>>> then back to original spot when you retract your arms.
>>> The center of mass is conserved. It's no different for
>>> a rocket engine, by spitting out mass in one direction
>>> it must move in the opposite direction to so the
>>> center of mass remains in the same spot. It has
>>> nothing to do with air friction.
> Well, all I can say is this physical principle has been
> accepted since....1687! And you'd be about the only person
> in the last THREE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE YEARS
> ....that thinks it's wrong. Maybe you should call CNN and
> give them the historic news~
> If that's what you want people to think about you, that's
> your business. But some advice, you might not want
> to utter that opinion around potential employers, friends
> and dates etc.
> Jonathan
> s
in 1687 they didn't believe man could escape earth attraction force... and if you claim so, why don't you prove your words? And I still believe and I am sure none can escape our prison planet... the laws of Newton are not applicable in free fall under vacuum conditions...
And BTW its only in 1919 that the theory of Godard was published and the people claimed he was crazy... Unlike most of his colleagues, Goddard believed rocketry was a viable technology
For nearly 20 years, Goddard's theories were just theories of a fool... until they made of the lie a standing fact, now they could fly in tin air and vacuum.
and I can prove his theory is false and NASA lying... and for that only, I deserve a Noble price...
and if you read good the theory of Godard you will discover he wasn't talking about space travel... but about "A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes," and that altitude is maximum 110km.
>> since in vacuum there is nothing to push against... so simple are the
>> facts you people refuse to see... and none of this experiments shown in
>> the video are proof of anything... I only hear a parrot repeating words he
>> doesn't understand... and certainly when he throws the big ball with the
>> two arms and says the AIR is pushing him... while it was the mass of his
>> own body which provide the force... come on people, are you serious?
>> but its true you people are between the lie and hell...
>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>> of hand.
> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
around the room?
When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
directions?
What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
What directions would all the shit fly?
You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
>> Johnathan: Do you SERIOUSLY think Warhole needs to
>> worry about girls, jobs and friends?
>> Those ships left the dock LONG ago.
> my ship was sank 300 years ago but by miracle it will reappear as by
> magic in the sky, one of this days, above its harbor at Anfa... and then
> only we shall see who will laugh and who will cry...
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:40:06 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
If you think Warhol is merely on the fringe of lunacy you need to
re-examine your criteria for lunacy.
>>> Very thoughtful anecdote, Gordon. I predict Warhole will dismiss it out
>>> of hand.
>> this analogy has no connection with my claims and rockets ain't
>> bullets... a bullet in space would simply remain in the barrel of the
>> gun... and if we take the bullet as example... how can a bullet change
>> from direction??? or slow down to dock to the iSS???
>When you let an inflated party balloon go, why does it fly
>around the room?
>When a star explodes, why does stardust go off in all
>directions?
>What would happen if a bomb went off in space?
>What directions would all the shit fly?
>You can go ahead and give ANY answer. I am expecting nothing
>but your typical lunatic fringe reply.
Just keep bringing up anything about space. You can run him around
like a cat chasing a laser pointer. :)
> >>> Millions of people know that you are wrong...
> >> You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale.
> >> BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps.
> >> A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move
> >> lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other".
> >> A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane.
> > Absolutely true.
> > The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong
> > conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the
> > pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When
> > those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel
> > for the rocket.
> > In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum.
> *prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you...
I did, but you're too lazy to do the math. I did the math years ago in my aerospace propulsion class. I don't need to do it again to know that it still holds true.
> *but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha > ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start > twisting words sonny jeff.
I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know how to do the math to prove it until college.
I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
That burn has to be done at apogee.
But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
Jeff
-- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
<jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
>I understood how a rocket engine worked in grade school, due to some >very nice diagrams in several books in my school library. I didn't know >how to do the math to prove it until college.
>I suppose all of those comsats in geostationary orbit just flew up there >on their own, right? Hint: without a working rocket engine, they could >never be there because they could have never circularized their orbits.
>That burn has to be done at apogee.
>But I suppose you don't understand orbital mechanics any better than you >understand aerospace propulsion, do you?
>It never ceases to amaze me that some people refuse to believe the >simplest of things which are based on basic physics.
