Physicists Can’t Agree if Jet-Fueled Rockets Work in Outer Space

Buck Rogers, Staff
Waking Times

In a world of misconceptions, half-truths, lies, omissions, cover-ups and verifiable conspiracies, few government agencies raise more eyebrows and skepticism than the good folks at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. To many intelligent, thoughtful, and impartial observers, even the Apollo moon landings appear to be an elaborate hoax, and many free-thinkers and independent researchers are fast at work destroying the official version of these historic events.

One question that has many of them scratching their heads is: Do rockets even work in outer space?

The debate centers around the simple question of physics as described by Isaac Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which is easy to observe here on the surface of the earth. This is cleverly summed up in the context of rocket science here:

“In space, rockets zoom around with no air to push against. What’s going on?

Rockets and engines in space behave according to Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket shoots fuel out one end, this propels the rocket forward — no air is required.

NASA says this principle is easy to observe on Earth. If you stand on a skateboard and throw a bowling ball forward, that force will push you and the skateboard back. However, because your weight on the skateboard is heavier than that of the bowling ball, you won’t move as far.” [Live Science]

Seems simple enough and this certainly is the prevailing understanding of how rockets work, but this explanation does nothing to account for the fact that outer space, as we are told, is an infinitely expanding vacuum of emptiness, completely devoid of matter, not even filled with gasses, as is the atmosphere here on planet earth. Furthermore, the defacto mainstream explanation of this phenomenon is completely dependent other factors found only within the earth’s atmosphere.

“Newton’s 3rd Law: action/reaction only works if you have two separate objects. More specifically these two objects have to be external to each other.

The reason you can’t pull yourself off of the floor by your belt is that you are one object even though you are made of many parts: internal organs, muscles, arms, legs, clothes, etc…

You can pull a weight off the floor that weighs as much as you because it is external to you.” [Source]

For Newton’s law to apply to physical objects, there must be gravity and an opposing external mass to react with, neither of which are present in outer space.

For a rocket to propel a space craft if must create thrust, which is only possible if an object has weight, hence thrust is measured in pounds. And since there is no gravity in space, any rocket would not have the weight required to push-off of whatever it is that is supposed to be available for the rocket to push-off of, thereby failing to produce thrust, which is what is supposedly required to move a rocket.

READ: If the Moon Landings Were Real, Then Why is NASA Stumped by This?

And since space is a vacuum, how is an ejection of hot gasses from a rocket’s engine, which is reacting upon no external objects, not even external gasses, supposed to trigger the action implied in Newton’s 3rd law? Does this add up?

“Every machine that moves is mechanical: relies on friction, pressure, exchanging energy with objects external to it. Everything except space rockets, that is. NASA might as well scrap rockets and go straight to saying we can teleport to the moon and other planets and asteroids.” [Source]

For a rather juvenile example of this questionable aspect of rocket science, here is a simple homemade experiment demonstrating what happens when the energy created by expelling compressed gasses from the rear end of a vehicle is sucked into a vacuum:

The debate on this subject is a hot one, and an infinite number of web-forums and science sites go back and forth between the possibilities presented in these arguments. What is clear, however, is that this issue is anything but a closed case, and with so much intelligent opposition to the presupposition that rockets work in space just as they do within the earth’s atmosphere, it certainly begs the question of how NASA can be 100% certain of this.

Of course, any debate on something as interesting as this is incomplete without a counter-argument. For that, here is a clip from the widely popular show Myth Busters, where the two know-it-all hosts attempt to put to rest the question of whether or not thrust can be achieved in a vacuum.

According to the establishment, it appears, some things are so simple and should be so readily taken for granted they require entertainers and big TV budgets to explain to the masses.

In Conclusion

This is the time of revelation and everything we take for granted is subject to intense scrutiny nowadays. So many things about our history that we’ve come to accept as absolute truth are proving to be false, by either outright fabrication, or elaborate distortion of the truth.

READ: NASA Caught Faking Tech Delays in Space Station Communications

Most will never consider this until its presented to them, but does a rocket even work in space? If it doesn’t then space travel, as is described, is not possible, and therefore the moon landings were a hoax.

What do you think? Can gas-fueled rockets work in space? What about the moon landings, do you think they really happened? Do you believe NASA?

Read more articles from Buck Rogers.

About the Author

Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

This article (Hey NASA, Do Gas-Fueled Rockets Really Work in Space?) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Buck Rogers and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

Piona O.

What absolute stupidity. We have 50 years’ worth of evidence that rockets work in outer space. What are you loonies up to?
Bill Ross

Complete and utter twaddle. Newton’s 3rd law stands. Idiots won’t.

I am more interested in the escape velocity we, as a species and civilization can achieve when we eject elites and their meddling from involvement in our peaceful lives and affairs.

Right now, innovation and progress is running on inertia and blind faith. The brakes of ignorance and “control” are applying friction, stopping civilization, opportunity and progress dead in the water.
Frank Beaty

“air to push against”? Am I actually reading what I think I’m reading? you don’t need air to push against. you need ignition within the system which produces thrust in one direction and matching motion in the opposite direction. holy cats, man. looks like common core is taking hold, just as planned
Russell

Newton’s 2nd law – Force = mass x acceleration. When the rocket in space expels it’s burnt fuel, it’s mass is reduced. As the force is constant, this reduced mass necessitates an increase in acceleration. Thus the rocket is accelerated.
roddy6667

Satellites and space vehicles sent to distant planets are navigated using hydrazine rockets. This has been done for decades. To say now that they don’t work is certainly ignorant. I used to see them at the Space and Life division of Hamilton Standard in CT back in 1980. They are only the size of a thimble, but they provide enough kick to steer something in space.
Barking Shark

I like the mythbusters clip, but i rather see them carry out the same experiment out in space or with the toy car in a weightless state so i could see if it flies in random directions or spins out of control once the mini rocket goes off, im kinda disappointed in them for not showing me this, SHAME!

But if you ask me rockets seems to be quite outdated for space travel, there should be better and faster ways to travel about, after all planets are quite far apart, im kinda disappointed in that scientists cant come up with better ways to travel in space, SHAME!
BrianFraser

I liked the demo with the cart, balloon thruster, and vacuum hose (especially the song). It seems to show that if the exhaust gas is sucked sideways, there is no forward component remaining to thrust the cart forward (and the wheels prevent the cart from moving sideways.) This, of course, is NOT the configuration used in outer space!

But there is an interesting twist to this one with a weird effect that few people understand. See “Motion Cancellers” at:

http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#MotionCancellers
Peter Clark

What complete utter twaddle. The only part of this that has any truth in it is the example given of the skateboard and the base ball. In this example the baseball is ejected with some force in one direction and the skate board (being the vehicle) is moved by exactly the same amount of force in the opposite direction. No external components required. In the process the skate board has lost mass, the baseball, which was originally part of the sum of the masses riding on the skateboard. The actual velocity achieved is the ratio of the two mass groups, the baseball and the sum of remaining masses on the skateboard. i.e. if the ratio between the two groups of masses was 40:1 (1 being the baseball) then the skateboard will move 40 times slower than the baseball. The only affect gravity has on this argument is to provide sufficient friction to bring both masses to an eventual stop. In space there is no gravity therefore the masses would continue to move away from each other at constant velocity. Therefore Rockets do work in space.
BrianFraser

There is a quite different look at propulsion in the white paper:

“Beyond Einstein: Non-local physics” by Brian Fraser (2015)

Here is a sample of relevant content:

“Example: there are two kinds of position and two kinds of velocity. Remember those two terms in the non-local form of gamma? We are using only one of them for propulsion—the spatial velocity one that depends on Newtonian mechanics. The other possibility, that of non-local motion, has been left unexplored. Using that, an aircraft could move from one position in the sky to another without traversing the intervening space. It would appear at one location, then disappear, then re-appear at another location. It could move at extremely high speeds without generating a sonic boom. It would use “field propulsion” based on the non-local characteristics of electric and magnetic fields. It would be completely self-contained because there is no action/reaction (exhaust) as in conventional propulsion (in this case, the reaction forces are radial, and cancel out within the structure of the aircraft, making the preferred shape one of something with radial symmetry, like a saucer or cigar).”

Two different kinds of non-local physics are discussed. One of these can be used for non-local propulsion (going to the stars without traversing the intervening space, which also avoids the energy problem).

The paper can be downloaded from: http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/BeyondEinstein.html The .html file gives a link to the .pdf file but the former has additional information.