Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber – 4K Slow Motion – will it burn? – Rockets (S1 • E3)


I was scrolling through the comments section. Of our see-through model rocket engine video. That we uploaded the other day. And a few comments there caught my attention. Apparently. The same people that think the Earth is flat. And Rockets cant fly in space. Also think. That a rocket can’t burn in a vacuum. The words hoax. Space flight. Moon landing. The Earth is flat. And stupid. Were few of the words being thrown around
in there. So. I’m going to run this model rocket engine. In this giant vacuum chamber. And let you be the judge. Alright yeah. Look at this baby this looks great. The scroll is done. This is my idea. to mount the rocket engine inside the tube. And what this is going to do. I got this idea. From the inside of a scroll compressor. And what this is going to do. Is not only hold the rocket in the center
of the tube. It’s also going to allow us. To see how much force the rocket is producing. I like the fact that it’s kind of like a scale. That looks pretty sinister. Alright that looks just about good there. That looks nice. We got our cameras all set up. Our Chamber is in a vacuum. And we are ready to roll it. Godspeed. Model rocket engine in a vacuum. It was a success. It burned. The whole rocket engine burned like in one
second. boom gone. It was crazy. Anyway. So yeah. it looks like that was a success. It was amazing because the entire rocket engine. Which usually last about 8 Seconds. Burned up and about. Literally one second In a vacuum. It was gone. So I found that amazing. It was the exact opposite of what everybody
thought it was going to do. Which was not burn at all. And let’s take a look inside there. Look at that a lot of debris. All kinds of stuff in there. And oh yeah. Our GoPro survived. A little bit chart up but it survived. Okay open it up there. I’m going to have you give it a little blow. Look at all the smoke that’s in there. And ready go. Wow that smells good. Thanks to all the viewers. For asking for this particular episode. Because this one was really good. This one was a lot of fun. Surprisingly. After this entire engine burned. We still have vacuum left. In our vacuum chamber. Which was impressive. So I hope you like this video. This was a great subject. Keep the ideas coming. A lot of these ideas. If you haven’t figured out already. We do listen to our audience. We integrate a lot of those ideas into these
episodes. Which in my opinion makes them more
organic. And gives me a lot of ideas. That I wouldn’t think of on my own otherwise. So keep the ideas coming. Keep telling us what you think. And keep watching. So that’s about it for this one. See you in the next episode.

100 thoughts on “Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber – 4K Slow Motion – will it burn? – Rockets (S1 • E3)

  1. For this to be anywhere near a valid experiment the length of the tube would need to be extremely long to provide an even half way decent analog for space

  2. This doesn't even HAVE to be tested (but hey, views lol). Solid rockets contain their own fuel and oxidizers so they don't need air to function.

  3. the rocket emits air or impulses, so it's no longer a vacuum … but in space … it's not enough to fill air from a rocket …

  4. It is not a perfect vacuum as in the space once the racket starts to fume plus it is enclosed tube compare to open space out there.

    What the actual argument in this debate is if the flame purged out of the exhaust is acting as pushing power against the exhaust funnel/cone/tailpipe on the way out which is attached to the racket's body and causing the racket going the opposite way of the flame. My theory is that since there is no any atmospheric condition but vacuum only, the exhaust will just go away with no effect on the racket's body.

    Newton's law: 1: Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
    In the case of racket in the space the "external force" is not there because the force of burnt fuel is happening inside the racket its self and it is forced out where it does not meet any obstacle like here on earth where the air is the obstacle.

    So the question now is if the exhausted gas separating from the exhaust tube/funnel is capable in the vacuum to push the racket's body the other way while combustion/main point of burning is happening in the actual spot where the solid fuel is burning and dissipating due to the reaction. Here on earth I fully understand that the exhaust gas is pushing against the air causing the opposite reaction according to the Newton's law but in a vacuum the air is not present so the only obstacle on the way out would be the end of the tailpipe. If the exhaust fumes have no obstacle, can it push such heavy object like racket away from its self to change direction or accelerate or will it just exit obediently with no effect?

    When something explodes all the sudden the fragments fly in all direction unless intentionally directed like explosive charges. Inflate balloon and let the end go and it will accelerate because the exiting air from the balloon will push against the surrounding air and same applies to high PSI tanks when valves break off suddenly when accidents happen.

    In case of the racket out there in the space/vacuum when burning solid fuel exiting, could it be considered as controlled "explosion" in much slower rate where the effect of separation of these two parts like fumes from the racket's body attached to the exhaust would be able to provide maneuverability? In that case the 3rd Newton's law would apply: 3: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It seams to me that it would need lot of puff without an assistance of the outside surrounding air. These minuscule tests in enclosed tubes seem not reliable. NASA has some huge building for testing under vacuum conditions but yet I have to find if they show some of these tests.

    Just something to think about also: In case of no wind on a lake or sea, sailboat with sails will not move. Place a big blower on the deck of the sailboat and blow into these sails. They will stretch for sure but I think no movement will happen unless some back push because of the blower attached to the deck will be cutting through the air and moving opposite direction of the air blowing into these sails.
    Just something else came to my mind, garden hose with sprayer or firemen hose: it will kick or constantly push at higher PSI while letting it run. Not holding it would cause a snake action when PSI is higher so I think this can be duplicated also in a vacuum. Now still the question is if in vacuum light gases exiting at speed given by the controlled burning of the fuel would cause the racket to move that much so it can be used in that environment. Of course there is no air resistance and the racket is orbiting in high speed so perhaps it doesn't need that much of force to command direction of the flight once the gravitational field of the earth is mostly gone after all the major fuel is gone lifting the racket to the place of intention.

  5. What a joke. Without a vacuum gage you proved nada. The rocket eliminated the vacuum and it moved. Useless unless you just were trying to fool flat earthers. We are not that stupid. Sorry. You seem to be very stupid to believe this is science. It is just a act. A stage would be proper. Though I guess your video could be projected on it. You are not a bad actor.

  6. W tej rurze całkiem wyraźnie widać w zwolnionym tempie, że siła działa dopiero po całkowity wypełnieniu rury gazami z wielkim ciśnieniem. Czyli rakiety nie mogą działać w próżni.

  7. It only started pushing when the vacuum was broken by the addition of atmosphere from the rockets engine. This isn’t the case in space.c

  8. can you do a bigger vacuum chamber and a smaller rocket… or maybe it would use its exhaust to push against as well, idk

  9. Cool. Love the setup and slow motion. But if we are being scientific here, the large amount of emissions being released into the small vacuum chamber negates the vacuum, there by invalidating the experiment.

    I suggest setting up the experiment again using a much larger vacuum chamber or a much smaller "rocket".

  10. it doesn't move forward until the chamber loads up with gas matter proving thrust movement would not occur against zero matter in a vacuum environment such as space. Unless you can remove the gas as fast as it is produced this proves only the burn theory.

  11. DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR – STOP CLAIMING WHAT 'FLAT EARTHERS' ARE SAYING – YOU'RE ONLY CREATING YOUR OWN STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS – NOT VERY SMART. THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR EXPERIMENT IS THAT IT'S WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A VERY SMALL 'VACUUM' CHAMBER WHERE THE ENGINE ESTABLISHES AND CREATES VERY RAPIDLY, AN ATMOSPHERE THAT OBLITERATES THE 'VACUUM' THE INSTANT IT IGNITES, THUS NULLIFYING YOUR RESULTS. THIS EXPERIMENT FAILS TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS.
    .

  12. When I watch these kind of videos I start LMAO because I know the flatheads watching this are going to expend so much energy trying to sound smart but keep proving how stupid they are instead.

  13. Could you do the same experiment in a bigger vaccum chamber? Im currently debating a dude who doesnt think rockets produce thrust in a vaccuum. I showed him this but he thinks the exhaust.fills the chamber enough to not be a vaccuum anymore. Hes bonkers but he is reasonable enough to say that the same experiment run in a bigger vaccuum chamber would be more convincing

  14. One commentor has also suggested comparing the rocket in the vaccuum chamber to a firig done (in the same tube even) without a vaccuum. This commentor predicts a difference in observations. Lets test that!

  15. Delta P = 0
    m1v1 + m2v2 = 0
    m1v1 = -m2v2

    Hot exhaust goes one direction. Rocket goes the other. Rockets dont push on anything. Its all conservation of momentum.

  16. This demonstration shows viewer how dumb the one who conducted it,why dont you build a very big vacuum chamber like the one in sandusky ohio to be your so called space and a very little rocket so it will be more realistic rather than building a small vacuum chamber, i dare you if that so called rocket can propel on a very big vacuum chamber,dont be so stupid, i know your a fucking dumb shit.

  17. I'm not a scientist but my thought is that the thrust is pushing off the side walls in the chamber. This expirement needs done in a far greater chamber where physical walls are too far away. That would be a better more comprehensive experiment.

  18. My head hurts. How could we hear it? especially in the tube when sound can not travel through a vacuum? That is what i was made to believe anyway….

  19. Notice that the engine initially doesn't move AT ALL. Only when its exhaust gasses have filled the tiny vacuum chamber, and provided the requisite air pressure, can the rocket achieve any thrust.
    This doesn't prove that rockets work in space, as space is a near-infinite void in comparison to this tiny chamber. The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket.

  20. I've never heard anyone say that rockets can't fire in a vacuum. What I have heard is that it can't provide propulsion because there is no matter (gas) to push off of. Basically, in a vacuum, and jet would just shoot its burned gasses into space but not move.

  21. Wow, this clearly proves that rockets don't work in the vacuum of space. As a kid, I shot off dozens of model rockets that used engines exactly like this. There is no delay at all between ignition and takeoff. In this experiment, you can clearly see in slow motion (@2:54) that the engine doesn't move until there are sufficient gasses in the tube to push off of.( @3:01) In fact, you can actually see the gas as smoke working its way back to the engine and when it does you start to see the engine pushing off of it.

  22. So an 8 second rocket lasted 1 second. I think we would all know or have a reason for why it would burn so much more fuel in a vacuum. If the fuel composition didn't change and the oxidizers are the same, why did it burn so much faster. Furthermore, I didn't know the flat-earthers didn't think it would burn. Who would think that? it has its own oxygen coming out the oxidizer and it has carbon to actually burn. My buddy would just always argue that it wouldn't move in space.

  23. Nice try.
    The thin walled plastic tube cannot hold a vacuum. You can collapse a tanker truck with a hobby compressor.
    The rocket is pushing against the end of the tube.
    The expelled gas from the rocket quickly turn that tube into a pressurized vessel.
    Fail.

  24. It makes sense, but another factor to consider is that all of these experiments reproduce vacuum but not gravity 0. So much so that you have to rest your devices on something fixed in the camera. Now we know that between centrifugal and centrifugal force generates a resultant that drives forward. These experiments all do not nullify the influence of gravity which may be the factor that generates at least minimal force with minimal reaction by burning oxygen itself and in a system that facilitates movement such as a soft spring or a propeller. In the case of space this does not occur.

  25. you dont have an "infinite" vacuum. you are filling a defined space with enough gas to have a substance in which the continued combustion can push upon in order to achieve "movement" . in an infinite vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 Tor you go no where . Your test is at best inconclusive for the limited container volume and the not nearly negative pressure required to simulate " space" but you tried.

  26. Напишите пожалуйста, какой у вас манометр цифровой, коллектор и вакуумный насос. Производители и модели.

  27. Only after the pressure is equalized then the engine moves.Tried a co2 cartridge in a large vacuum chamber …. doesn’t move till the very end .

  28. That won't work because there is no oxygen in there to burn and start ignition.I suggest this guy might want to look first at the fire triangle,therefore this is fake

  29. A flat earther could deny they have ears. They can't see them with their eyes, they would call a mirror fake, if they take a selfie they would call it photoshopped, they would say they hear with their nose. That is how their "common sense and logic" works.

  30. These experiments prove nothing. Space isn’t a tube. In order to prove this theory is to do it you know in outer space. Are you telling me that an experiment done on earth in a tube simulates the conditions in outer space? Same can be said to flat earthers. Space isn’t just a vacuum. The ether may very well exist and what about dark matter? Also you have to take in account temperatures in space. To say this proves rockets work in space is just not proof enough. No one will ever prove it until someone does it in actual space. And the moon landings are still up in the air.

  31. Zauważ milordzie , że dopiero jak gazy wypełniły rurę to zaczął się ruch rakiety. Wiec to doświadczenie to bulshit . Dowodzi jedynie że w próżni nie może to działać 🙂

  32. Or gas from the engine is not reflected from the end of the tube? The mini rocket engine moves back when the chamber fills with gas.

  33. I get why people would think that rockets don’t work in space because forward momentum is based on the objects ability to push against itself and with no air pressure in space to push against the rocket you would think that the rocket would just burn and not go anywhere but forward propulsion is a self contained mechanism that pushes away from its own mass which is what allows rockets to have forward momentum in a vacuum. Just like if you were holding a rock in space and just hurled it as hard as you could, it would simply keep flying away at the same speed that it left your hand going until another object or the gravity of a planetary body snared it. I certainly understand the confusion people have about it but it’s easily explained.

  34. FAIL. The plug that was first blasted off artificially allowed the rocket to ignite and once ignited the vacuum was lost. In the vacuum of space there is no plug and the vacuum is maintained and not lost unlike your vacuum chamber. Bad science.

  35. In fact your experiment proves that ''the gravity'' can't hold the air around ''the globe''. Besides, gases are expandable and that's the principle used in experiment. So, if the gases expand in your vacuum chamber and the experiment is at ground level where your gravity is the strongest, can you explain how the earth can have an atmosphere when surrounded by vacuum?????

  36. 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫

    Science Breaking News: “Kansas is Actually Flatter Than A Pancake” by Erin Podolak ~ Tuesday, August 16th 2011. As the old saying goes Kansas, like many midwestern states, is as flat as a pancake. Somehow, pancakes became the golden standard for flatness, but do they really deserve such a title? A team of researchers from Texas State University and Arizona State University decided to find out. The researchers scientifically tested whether or not the state of Kansas was as flat as a pancake, and were surprised at what they found. Pancakes might be flat, but they are by no means the golden standard. The state of Kansas is actually flatter than a pancake. Who would have thought that was possible? The researchers figured this out by gathering data from the US Geological Survey about the topography of Kansas. They then obtained sample pancakes from none other than that breakfast staple, The International House of Pancakes. Armed with science and breakfast, the researchers headed into the lab. The researchers used a confocal laser microscope to compare the flatness quotient of a pancake to the USGS data about Kansas. For something to be perfectly flat (1.0) it would need to have no two points on its surface at different levels. A 2cm strip of pancake was placed under the microscope, and the researchers found that it was surprisingly inconsistent (0.957) with some sharp peaks and a lump in the center. Kansas, on the other hand, was pretty darn close to the perfectly flat designation, coming in at 0.9997. According to the researchers, this makes the state flatter than a pancake. Now, this isn’t to say that Kansas is as flat as it gets, as it does fall short of perfect and there are bound to be some hills or other “spikey” things that would keep it from that designation, but the researchers were able to conclude that a pancake is shockingly bumpy and doesn’t deserve to be the golden standard for flatness.

    The Earth is Not Moving! The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?

    We must take it on faith as mathematical proof doesn't exist.

    N.A.S.A. on speed:

    The Earth's orbital speed around the sun is 67,000 m.p.h.

    The sun's orbital speed around the galaxy is 450,000 m.p.h.

    The speed of the ground beneath your feet, as a result of the Earth's rotation is

    600 m.p.h. at the latitude of Sheffield (53 degrees);

    1,000 m.p.h. at the equator.

    The Earth travels 584 million miles per year (one trip around the sun); that's

    1,600,000 miles per day; 66,667 miles traveled each hour

    “The distance across St. George's Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay. The Lighthouse on Holyhead Pier shows a red light at an elevation of 44 feet above high water; and the Poolbeg Lighthouse exhibits two bright lights at an altitude of 68 feet; so that a vessel in the middle of the Channel would be 30 miles from each light; and allowing the observer to be on deck, and 24 feet above the water, the horizon on a globe would be 6 miles away. Deducting 6 miles from 30, the distance from the horizon to Holyhead, on the one hand, and to Dublin Bay on the other, would be 24 miles. The square of 24, multiplied by 8 inches, shows a declination of 384 feet. The altitude of the lights in Poolbeg Lighthouse is 68 feet; and of the red light on Holyhead Pier, 44 feet. Hence, if the earth were a globe, the former would always be 316 feet and the latter 340 feet below the horizon!” — Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, ~ Earth Not a Globe!

    “The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed ‘curvature’ given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no ‘curvature,’ on the surface of the sea – ‘the level of the sea,’- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.” — William Carpenter,

    100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe

    Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature. (self.conspiracy)

    The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad's highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. Adding the station's actual height (240 feet) to its theoretical inclination (5,400 feet) gives 5,640 feet as the rail's necessary height on a globe Earth, more than a thousand feet taller than Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in Great Britain.

    The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth's and water's non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth's supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water's surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the flood tides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

  37. What degree of vacuum was created initially? It can't have been much, and nowhere near an absolute vacuum. Nowhere near. To simulate what is said to be in space, you would need a chamber with thick steel walls. What you created in this glass tube was not a vacuum. You simply reduced the air pressure a bit. Come on, who do you think you're talking to? You are just feeding the intolerant and vicious attitudes of that group which is disconcerted by the challenge to their cherished belief in the established dogmas. It's funny to see how the 'flat earth' proponents cause so much upset and anxiety. A more scientific approach would welcome their dissenting alternative views.

  38. Great video , well presented solid information for the hard of learning. Lets take a minute for the people who think rockets don't work in space , they are the ones running towards the ice wall , careful now.

  39. The issue the skeptics have about "rocket's working in space" is not will a rocket ignite. Hence you experiment proved nothing because the solid rocket you have has the necessary oxygen in the chemical compound used. Hence it should work. An electric spark does the rest. The issue is the vast vacuum of space and how it interacts with the ignited rocket. And here you have a scaling problem. Hence the movement of the rocket in that chamber does not help to answer that question. Otherwise nice try.
    Invoking "flat earth" in the discussion shows the inability of the party to debate the issue rationally.

  40. cool ! quick idea if you ever do this or something similar center your cam with your copper coil and make some lines with a marker so you can measure exactly were it reaches when rocket is blasting.

  41. Am not a global or flat earther. As many are saying this is science and maths. Very simple!!! Let’s start with science, Newton 3rd law…. the rocket moved when the gases filled the space behind, at the beginning it did not. This means whatever behind the rocket is not a vacuum anymore but gasses that rocket can push to. Simple science!!!. Lets do some maths here…………….should I even?!!

  42. 2:25 ignition and the rocket stands 2:28, only then the rocket starts. Your experiment shows that the rocket started when the pipe was filled with gas. Gas that was in the fuel. It can be assumed that if the pipe were several times longer and had a much larger diameter, your rocket would stay in place. Which would mean that the thrust in a vacuum is negligible. Well done for carrying out the experiment. Not everyone would like to do this. Greetings.

  43. You can hear the ignition and then the engine noise in your "vacuum" pipe. There is no vacuum because there is no sound in the vacuum. There are no particles in a vacuum and there is nothing to vibrate. When the astronauts on the Moon drove the rod into the ground and when they threw something at the lander, there was a sound. Very clearly. If there was a vacuum there would be no sound. So they were not in a vacuum. So where were they ??

  44. Watch the YT video: "Uninterrupted Footage of the Falcon Heavy Launch and Booster Landing! 2-6-18" for PROOF of rocket propulsion in a vacuum.
    It's best to watch that video AND the same footage from the rocket: "Falcon Heavy Test Flight" for views from onboard the center core.

    FOr the morons that will certainly say "But thats not a vacuum" Please tell me HOW the side boosters would peel away from the center core at 3600 MPH in an atmosphere .
    BOTH of those videos show the side boosters peeling away gracefully and smoothly.
    HOW WOULD boosters separate IF THEY WERE STILL IN ATMOSPHERE?

    I'll answer: They would be RIPPED AWAY IN A MILLISECOND.

  45. A vacuum in a plastic tube?! Hahaha. How weak was your vacuum. Or… how much air was there? This is about as scientific as footage of Bigfoot. You didn’t show any measurements proving it was a vacuum.

  46. Where can I find video of rocket propulsion in space, like the actual rockets? Don't they take videos of rocket launches from the ISS?

  47. This is not a complete vacuum. Fire will not combust in a vacuum. This video is fake! ..google" can things burn in a vacuum"….next time show 0 psi…not 29.2…

  48. how does jet engine thrust behave in vacuume ? NASA photoes of Apollo lunar module on the moon show no traces of engine thrust work on moon surface beneath the lunar module. The frequent explanation offered is rocket engine thrust is totally dissolved in space vacuum. I feel this explanation is wrong. What do you think ?

  49. Your flimsy contraption doesn't even come close to the so-called "vacuum of space" (1×10−6 to < 1×10−17) Torr.

  50. Precisely as I have said before….There is absolutely no thrust until there is sufficient pressure ADDED to the chamber via the rocket's exhaust, that's why it took so long for any movement to be seen in the spring. Also, you will notice at the very beginning the rocket ejected something at a high velocity away from itself, which hit the end of the vacuum chamber, and there was no reaction from the spring whatsoever. The reason for this is because there was nothing outside of the rocket for that projectile to push against or displace. The reason it took so long for the rocket to push against the spring is because when a vacuum is maintained…the fast blowing fire has no pressure, and no air molecules to displace, and GOES NO-WHERE.

  51. OH yeah, I forgot to mention, also the reason the rocket didn't push against the spring immediately is because the vacuum chamber SUCKED out some of the rocket's exhaust for a little while, then was some pressure inside the chamber, and then the rocket was finally able to displace something and only then did it push against the spring. I have gone over this many times…It's all about that VERY first gas molecule escaping the nozzle….when it is ENCOURAGED to escape FASTER than normal because of being in a VACUUM, it is NEVER ran into by gas molecules BEHIND IT. None of the gas molecules escaping the nozzle in a vacuum ever run into each other….the first that came out first is still at the head of the line, none of the gas molecules behind it will ever catch up and push him forward. In space it would just form a perfectly straight line leaving the rocket nozzle….The line would never bunch up, and Yes that damn rocket wouldn't budge an inch.

    The boat prop must displace water for the boat to move. It has to move the water forcibly or the boat doesn't move.
    The airplane prop must displace air for the airplane to fly. It has to move the air forcibly, like you actually have to feel a ton rushing air coming at you or the airplane doesn't fly.
    A jet engine must displace air for the jet to fly. It has to move air out of the way forcibly or the jet doesn't move. And, if the jet gains too much altitude, climbing to where the air gets thin, it loses THRUST.
    A rocket taking and flying MUST displace air or molecules of some kind in the environment. It has to move something OUT of it's way in order to go the other direction. In a vacuum the rocket thrust is ENCOURAGED, or SUCKED OUT. Unlike a rocket in room, or one on the launch pad where the rocket's thrust is FORCED OUT. Because the vacuum also does NOT have any air molecules in it for the fast blowing fire to blow against or displace it doesn't move that reason ALSO, Two reasons a rocket will NOT fly in vacuum of space. LEARN THEM BOTH>

  52. We all know (or should know) that rockets carry their oxidizer, so they will burn in space. What may not be so obvious is the fact that the exhaust remained highly directional despite the vacuum, contradicting Nasa's claim that the Apollo landing module did not kick up dust due to the spacial dispersion of exhaust particles. Thank you my friend for casting doubt on an other NASA claim..

  53. So the rocket burns in a vacuum with an exhaust plume – Apollo17 ascent module ascended WITHOUT a plume, we are told because it was in a vacuum.
    Apparent contradiction.
    Any thoughts ?

  54. thanks, but from what I saw, it didn't move until the chamber was filled with smoke (air) and it then had somthing to push against.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *