Shit in space and stuff

I'm watching all this shit on youtube right, so they feed me another flat earth video, sure i'll click. Now honestly i cannot objectively say if the earth is flat or round or pearshaped or whatever the fuck. Logic doesn't equate to truth so i can only assume one thing or the other.

Here's the deal. A show about fucking rockets, do they work in a vacuum, yeah you've seen that shit too. 2 things i want to know okay...

One is when something "burns" in a vacuum, does it produce smoke and would that smoke rise up? (when performed on earth, despite gravity and temperature and shit)

Two is when a rocket is being propelled into space, at what point does the aerodynamics fail to steer the vehicle? And how do you prevent it to spiral the fuck out from there on?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2YuC7UbwI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Assuming space exists, there would be no aerodynamics in space as its a vaccuum.

Heres a better question. How many simultaneous rockets placed side by side, bolted to the ground all facing east would it take to reduce earths gravity and increase the centripetal force?

You've gotta lot to learn man. Me too.

1. Yes, but because of the velocity it's travelling out of the exhaust and lack of gravity, it just shoots off into space, disperses, and stays in orbit for basically forever.
2. Control surfaces and vectoring fins steer the spacecraft in the atmosphere, but the 2nd / 3rd stage engines can pivot. No spacecraft in the history of ever has used fins in upper stages and it's an autistic trope cartoons feed into babies' minds. Spacecraft are also stabilised in space because they have tiny motors that spin at millions of rpm that create inertia.

And object as big as the Earth will squash itself into the shape of a sphere due to gravity and to convserve angular momentum, it'll spin, causing it to bulge along the equator slightly. The Earth is very close to being round.

>blows exhaust west
>earth's spin increases ever so slightly to the east
>massive westerly wind dissipates enacting an equal and opposite force on the earth
>everything back to normal

Angular momentum conserved.

i-i knew that i was just testing you.

1. That is what i would expect indeed cause there is no substance of any kind surrounding the vehicle. But i see people making videos with vacuum chambers where they ignite a flammable substance that just turns black or reacts in some form, and still the smoke seems to go up wich is fucked up.

2. I've seen the Apollo lunar module's take off, now that is some straight up fantasy bullshit. But i'm assuming you wouldn't call that an autistic trope no?

that's not what angular momentum means
it means....like when a figure skater pulls in their arms, there are equations

...

1. Smoke travels downward in a vacuum, but the smoke carries energy and shoots upwards, making it look like it's rising, youtube.com/watch?v=Yb2YuC7UbwI
2. The Apollo lunar modules didn't have aerodynamic fins, pic related.

No seriously, angular momentum (this is my attempt without looking it up) is I guess the momentum of a massive spinning object in the direction of spin (momentum is a vector). And because momentum is velocity times mass, for the same mass, a denser object will spin faster because it has a smaller circumference (velocity is displacement [circumference] over time).

this is just conservation of energy, not conservation of angular momentum

yes and, if none of the mass of the system leaves the system carrying away energy, the angular momentum can't change.

In a closed system, like launching rocket exhaust into the atmosphere, angular momentum is conserved. You cannot change the angular momentum of the earth without lobbing something off of it. I am not talking about changing the radial distribution of the earth, that is not the only case in which conservation of angular momentum counts.

This problem is inherently an example of conservation of angular momentum.

Yeah basically.

>One is when something "burns" in a vacuum, does it produce smoke
most things do, but a gas like methane doesn't.

>would that smoke rise up? (when performed on earth, despite gravity and temperature and shit)

Even on the surface of the Earth, in a vacuum, smoke will spread in any direction. The smoke will come off the source in a stream in a somewhat random direction from the source and eventually dissipate, filling the volume.

>what point does the aerodynamics fail to steer the vehicle?
An airfoil loses control when it either reaches stall because of angle of attack, loss in velocity or thinning atmosphere.

What does flat earth have to do with that?

Wait what does happen to the rotation velocity when some mass is ejected from the system? Does it increase? Because angular momentum is conserved?

1. That does look like it drops down, but it's also not very high. Path of least resistance. Also he seemed to have more ease igniting materials then others. Too much oxygen present.

2. No they had electromechanical boosters to steer and a big one right under their buttholes to get them of that ball o'cheese back to the command module.

Come on man, science is one thing, but a 1960's science fiction movie is still just that. No amount of technobabble can reproduce these so called "moonlandings", not even NASA if i have to believe Donald Pettit

Depending on how volatile the substance is, but rubber for example just seem to melt and draw a straight upward line of smoke like you would see when blowing out a candle when there is little turbulence present. It did seem to came down, but it had its cooldown as short as it may be.

An airfoil is designed for horizontal flight and provides good steering. A rocket is a fire stick with limited mobility and a one way ticket.

I guess it's a flat earth thing because the earth isn't just flat but also has a dome around it and all the elements of space are projections of some sort or another... i think.

YOU ARE RETARDED
Rockets don't actually exist. If you do the math yourself, and weren't such a brainlet, you would see there are no metals we currently have that can support the force created from igniting rocket fuel.

Holy fuck I'm totally wrong about angular momentum, I'm fuckin stupid. Fuck life. I'm gonna git gud.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by "support the force"? The only point at which any structural component must sustain the full force of a rocket engine firing is at the beginning of ignition while the engine throttles to full thrust. If you mean "how does the engine not tear through the body of the rocket," the bolt stress calculations are pretty easy and decent steel alloys do the job quite well.

>i cannot objectively say if the earth is flat or round or pearshaped or whatever the fuck. Logic doesn't equate to truth so i can only assume one thing or the other.

>Logic doesn't equate to truth


Right on, brother. The Earth is in fact flat.

But it's not a fact, it's only assumed to be factual.

Jesus christ, I don't even want to argue with someone as retarded as you. Metal is made of straight atoms, making it brittle. Igniting rocket fuel creates lots of force. This easily breaks the straigjt atoms.

Ah, momentarily forgot about the bait-fests on space-related threads.

The fact that mods allow this thread is the reason this board has gone to shit.

It’s great to question science. But this is just retarded

ITT: OP continuously demonstrates lack of knowledge of high school physics

i now see where all the brainlett memes come from. bait threads like these

Oh here's another one from the Church of Educationism...

Reads OP