The 'rockets don't work in space' hoax theory

[ka9q]

I found a picture of a 9-SRB Delta II that shows the different nozzle lengths pretty well:

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d341/mst/01.jpg

Six have short nozzles and are lit at liftoff, the remaining three have long nozzles and are lit at T+60 sec, about when the first set burn out. In theory, lighting all nine at liftoff would be more fuel-efficient but it would unacceptably increase stresses.

[Willoughby]

When I come across someone making the argument that rockets would not work in a vacuum, I ask them to make a prediction about the following scenario and provide a video which I made as an example of an experiment they can perform.

Take one of those kitchen spray nozzles and wrap a rubber band around it so that it is always on.  Turn the water on and of course the nozzle will be thrust backwards due to the water exiting the nozzle at some velocity.  Then balance the nozzle so that the thrust equals gravity, and the nozzle is suspended in the air.  I then ask what they predict would happen if you placed some solid object (in my case a paper plate) directly in front of that nozzle where the water is spraying directly on a solid "wall" an inch away.  Those that believe that rockets need air to push off of no doubt believe that this would increase the thrust of the nozzle.  I then link them to the following video.  I have never had anyone come back with a counter.  I don't know if they just give up and run away or if they perform the experiment and realize they were wrong, but it seems to work to at least enlighten a few, and that's all I care about.  Here is a link to the video :

I am not in any way trying to promote this video or my channel (which only consists of this single video I believe!).  I legitimately think it is a good experiment to have those that don't understand how rockets work perform.  These people don't understand that rockets don't need something to "push off of".  Their education is limited, and getting into expansion rates and rocket equations will do no good for these people (in my opinion).  They don't understand all that stuff.  They can do this experiment and see first hand that they are wrong.  Explaining to them WHY they are wrong does no good for these people until they accept that they ARE wrong.  This experiment does that in my experience.  THEN, will they be able to accept an explanation as to WHY they were wrong.

[Allan F]

Brilliant. Loved the last bit, where it was obvious, the nozzle wasn't supported by anything other than water spray. And the symbolic "fall" of hoax ideas.

[smartcooky]

An excellent test clearly showing that something behind the exhaust of a rocket has no influence on the thrust.

Here is another one done by Mythbusters. I know I have posted this before, but this is a good place to have it for the benefit of lurkers...

[ka9q]

I've tried all these arguments, including the Mythbusters video. Nothing works, because these people are simply delusional.

[Bryanpoprobson]

My answer is an experiment you can do sitting on a chair with wheels. If you get, a medicine ball, or other heavy object and a balloon of the same size. Sit on the chair and throw the medicine ball. Then repeat with the balloon.
1:- If the amount you move is due to pushing against the air you will move the same distance.
2:- As this is not the case, you will move further with the medicine ball, because the "thrust" is proportional to the mass of the object you throw.

[onebigmonkey]

There's a larger scale version of Willoughby's video that was done for a TV show with a guy on a platform bouyed up by high pressure fire hoses. he went from hovering above a land based surface to hovering over a water surface some feet below him with absolutely no loss in height.

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

[Peter B]

Great pair of videos.

After watching the Mythbusters one I saw a link to one titled "No Rockets go near or enter Space, so simple to see it hurts". Interestingly, that video contained a link to our old mate Anders Bjoerkman of Heiwa fame...

[bknight]

There's a larger scale version of Willoughby's video that was done for a TV show with a guy on a platform bouyed up by high pressure fire hoses. he went from hovering above a land based surface to hovering over a water surface some feet below him with absolutely no loss in height.

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

But, but, but they are critical thinkers

[Gazpar]

There's a larger scale version of Willoughby's video that was done for a TV show with a guy on a platform bouyed up by high pressure fire hoses. he went from hovering above a land based surface to hovering over a water surface some feet below him with absolutely no loss in height.

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

I dont think you are wasting any taxes on them since they are probably homeschooled or dropped out.

[Apollo 957]

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

I dont think you are wasting any taxes on them since they are probably homeschooled or dropped out.

I don't think I'm wasting any taxes on Team Hoax because most all of them appear to be in the USA, and I'm not.

The latest whackjob is one who's put together a camera/lens/teleconverter combo to photograph and film Sirius, the brightest star in our sky. He's ended up with something that looks like a starfish, and thinks he's found the 'true shape' of it, because the 'Government' hadn't accounted for the combination of equipment he's using when they falsified the Sirius imagery in all the other (digital) equipment.......

He admits his equipment won't focus on any other stars, and is useless for photographing terrestrial objects, but seems to think this makes it ideal for showing the 'true shape' of this one star.....

Wow. Just.... Wow.

[Gazpar]

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

I dont think you are wasting any taxes on them since they are probably homeschooled or dropped out.

I don't think I'm wasting any taxes on Team Hoax because most all of them appear to be in the USA, and I'm not.

The latest whackjob is one who's put together a camera/lens/teleconverter combo to photograph and film Sirius, the brightest star in our sky. He's ended up with something that looks like a starfish, and thinks he's found the 'true shape' of it, because the 'Government' hadn't accounted for the combination of equipment he's using when they falsified the Sirius imagery in all the other (digital) equipment.......

He admits his equipment won't focus on any other stars, and is useless for photographing terrestrial objects, but seems to think this makes it ideal for showing the 'true shape' of this one star.....

Wow. Just.... Wow.

What.

[Luke Pemberton]

However, as ka9q says, these people are delusional and the only thing they represent is the waste of taxes spent on educating them.

I dont think you are wasting any taxes on them since they are probably homeschooled or dropped out.

I don't think I'm wasting any taxes on Team Hoax because most all of them appear to be in the USA, and I'm not.

The latest whackjob is one who's put together a camera/lens/teleconverter combo to photograph and film Sirius, the brightest star in our sky. He's ended up with something that looks like a starfish, and thinks he's found the 'true shape' of it, because the 'Government' hadn't accounted for the combination of equipment he's using when they falsified the Sirius imagery in all the other (digital) equipment.......

He admits his equipment won't focus on any other stars, and is useless for photographing terrestrial objects, but seems to think this makes it ideal for showing the 'true shape' of this one star.....

Wow. Just.... Wow.

What? All he needs to do is Google images of Sirius and he'll find the same starfish shape. There's a complete lack of fundamental physics going on with these hoaxers.

[MBDK]

I have had some success in at least getting the hoax folks to shut up by humoring them slightly, but trying to show where THEIR favorite theory fails.  My argument goes something like this:

Your "push off of air" fantasy isn't credible to ANYONE with scientific experience.  Let us examine HOW that would work at the molecular level, shall we?  Combustion forces the exhaust out of the nozzle - you agree with that.  You say that said combustion does not impart force to the rocket (fundamentally false, but I'll indulge you for this one time), so that means the exhaust molecules have to bounce off the air molecules, return to the rocket, bounce off of it, and thereby produce lift.  Do you realize how inefficient that would be?  How many exhaust molecules are going to hit air molecules (which are normally randomly moving, or moving in the general direction of local air currents) at PRECISELY the right angle to be reflected back in a manner to strike the rocket?  Very, very few, if you know ANY math/geometry whatsoever.  If that was how rockets worked (it isn't) their efficiency would be greatly improved by giving them a bell-shaped bottom so more molecules could reflect off it and thereby achieve more thrust.  However, the opposite is true in reality, because your visualizations were not thought through to realize such a fundamental failure.  Maybe you need to add some air fairies to your hypothesis to produce the needed lift?

Now, I may have missed something in my interpretation, but I have never gotten any counter explanation.

[MBDK]

Another real-life example to give the hoax folks is to tell them to blow on their hand as hard and quick as they can.  A healthy person can feel the force on their hand, but no matter how close they get to their mouths, they will feel no significant force returned to their face.