www.nbcnews.com
Propulsion in a vacuum is eminently possible as Newton's third law is well established and used as a basic mechanical principle throughout engineering.
In the case of a vacuum, propulsion only works with ground contact, ie, friction/traction. The 3rd law does not apply to engines in space, where no opposing force exists to push against. But more specifically, I was interested in the Moon Buggies system of fuel, transmission and heat/exhaust exchange, given the temps reaching higher than boiling point in the Sun. How was the moon buggy cooled? Did NASA beat Musk to the lithium ion battery? We'll never know
My physics is a little rusty but it is the bulk of the motor itself which is the opposing force.
For propulsion you need to create what's called a pressure differential. Propulsion is more complex than just pushing something out in a given direction. There needs to be an actual change in pressure that produces the opposing forces. This can't happen in a vacuum, and the vastness of a vacuum in space will cause any ejected material to instantly lose directional force by the action of equilibration which pulls the energetic particles in all directions, instantaneously . Even if equilibration doesn't happen, you still can't create the necessary pressure differences
No, If a shotgun is fired in space by remote control the shot flies forward and the gun jumps backward and will keep going back as there is no air resistance. This is the principle of rocket propulsion.
This is a very common mistake. Not only is there propulsion in a vacuum but once set moving the object keeps moving for ever. There is no air resistance or gravity to pull it to earth.
No. The shotgun will not go off in space, due to the lack of oxygen. No combustion. But even if it could, the barrel creates a pressured container for the propulsion to at least begin. This is not the case with ship rockets. They eject their energy right into the vacuum
The gaseous ejection from the rocket fills the small vacuum chamber, thereby negating the vacuum. This is a video about repressurization. Note how the rocket fails to move until the smoke begins to fill the chamber, thereby reintroducing the possibility of creating the necessary pressure differential . Try this experiment in a much bigger vacuum chamber. You will get no propulsion.
Does shotgun powder contain an oxidizer? If not, you get no combustion in a vacuum. If oxidizer is present , you will get a shot off, but only because the gun chamber contains the pressure. You absolutely need a pressurized environment to generate propulsion
So, when the primer is hit, the pressure is all inside the cartridge, nothing is compromised?
Both old black powder and smokeless powder contain their own oxidiser. They do not depend on
Old black powder contained a mixture of Saltpetre as an oxidiser, charcoal as a fuel and Sulphur to aid ignition.
Rockets nozzle exhaust will push against anything that gets in the way. If it is a wall it will push against it.
Still no sign of anyone going to the moon. 54 years now. I can prove the footage was fake, I cannot prove they did not go except by circumstantial evidence. Not only that, but I predict no one will land on it by the end of this century. Not Chinese, Indian or Russian. So I will never be able to prove they went of did not go.
space.stackexchange.com
Jarry, do you have a link to the study of the astronauts' shit that they rolled up and packed in bags for observation back on earth?
Here's a broad history.
www.businessinsider.com
www.thesun.co.uk
LOL. Space gets real crazy when you start thinking about how fucked up bodily functions would be. All that food and drink floating around your stomach like being on a rollercoaster 24/7. Not having "gravity" to help you push out a hard one. Not showering for a year. Micro pieces of shit and piss floating around.Here's a broad history.
From peeing in a 'roll-on cuff' to pooping into a bag: A brief history of how astronauts have gone to the bathroom in space for 58 years
A variety of makeshift solutions have been sent into space, including bags, roll on cuffs, diapers, strappy toilet seats, and $19 million commodes.
And more.
www.thesun.co.uk
Absolutely.
www.vox.com
As part of my investigation, I investigtated Apollo 11. There is a white object under the lander.
This a very important question. They say they wore nappies when walking on the moon.LOL. Space gets real crazy when you start thinking about how fucked up bodily functions would be. All that food and drink floating around your stomach like being on a rollercoaster 24/7. Not having "gravity" to help you push out a hard one. Not showering for a year. Micro pieces of shit and piss floating around.
Apollo 11 Moon Landing astronauts coped with no toilet and used bags taped to bums and 'pee condoms', Nasa report reveals
NO conventional toilet was designed for the Moon Landing mission of 1969 meaning the astronauts had to use a variety of other contraptions to relieve themselves. The processes of peeing and pooing …
View attachment 3136
The flat earth is for a laugh. The moon landing thing is a very real question. I actually sat up all that night
Because it was extremely expensive at the time and the American public did not want to continue to spend the money.
www.theatlantic.com
Go ask The Sun. If you think they fabricated the whole article then go report it to NASA or something.
So no evidence. Gotcha. Of course, it's a tabloid isn't it? One of the worst too.
This is a key observation, the moon landings were more important in human history than the discovery of America or Australia. They would have been discovered by someone as humans were there before white men. In all those cases men returned within 50 years. Not only that, but there is no record on any living thing, human or animal ever going beyond LEO. They cannot ever go up half way there and come back.
