Bobby: Bobby posted “”:

“Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When one object exerts force on another, the second object instantly exerts an equal force in the opposite direction.
This principle explains how rockets launch, swimmers move, and cars drive.”

     Bobby’s post states the same ideas as what I posted, only I posted using my own words. The meaning of what Bobby posted is no different than my explained posting, only the weight of each object matters.
     The “equal and opposite reaction” depends on the weight (of the liquid fuel) being used to influence the main object (being the rocket and payload) to be influenced. Rocket fuel being used to influence far heaver rockets etc, fuel weight is far less in weight to influence far heavier rocket engine and pay load other than miner directional changes.
     In a no atmosphere environment the use of burning liquid into gases doesn’t change the weight of liquids turned into gases, yet the expansion of liquids into gasses creates the force of the hot gases weight in desired directions. The Idea that Newton's theory explains swimming and how cars move, relates to having an atmosphere involved hot gases can push against, doesn't prove a no atmosphere environment has the same moving forwards performance result.

     I tried to state rocket engine exhausts don’t work the same in a no atmosphere environment as when rocket exhausts are pushing against an atmosphere. Google posts stating “Newton's Third Law of Motion” drives rockets forwards that exhaust pushing against earth’s atmosphere is not mentioned, readers assume atmosphere plays no part in rocket propulsion. Non thinkers want to believe media aren’t telling lies about outer space travel as they don’t want to believe they have been fooled.
     Most school educated people hate learning new ideas to avoid memories of repressed anxiety awareness of classroom and homework learning traumas. Myself trying to express new ideas and debunk myths which most readers are going to feel new and debunking ideas feel like hated school learning, many readers will feel reduced repressed traumas if they express to themselves that my posts are BS, hence experience emotional decision making skills are good true intelligent responses.

     I doubt school education science would have taught rocket engine determinations on atmosphere environments. Merely because school education taught science, that many students passed exams, knowledge is usually specific, passing exams doesn’t mean students can assume they understand everything scientific.

     In around 1986 I spent 2 years fixing colour televisions for an monetary earning income, mostly buying old televisions, fixing them and reselling them. I was good at fixing televisions, yet changed my income profession to something different. I also designed circuits and etched copper coated circuit boards making several items: disco sound tone activated red green blue lights; four channel chase lights that had ten different speed and pattern movements, cost so much to build, I couldn’t assume a profit margin; I made a ten pin bowling ally electric board inferred LED pin counters to replace old metal mechanical functions which worked except for overhead lighting interference, the bowling ally maintenance man failed to solve, I had no direct communication with the ally owner to negotiate a price for more boards.

     I heard long ago school education doesn’t teach grammar. An episode of “Adam Ruins Everything” argued that the English language is so divers all those old rules of grammar are irrelevant.

     My previous posts related to Mr X big headed narcissistic behaviours, an event I experienced was that Mr X read one post, only to examine the grammar, stating he didn’t care about the reading’s meanings, quickly stating my grammar was terrible. I asked him to install the reading on a windows office program to examine the underlined grammar mistakes which he did... he found no underlined grammar mistakes, that’s because I used a windows office word program grammar turned on to aid typing up readings. Mr X blamed the use of : and ; stopped the word grammar program from working properly and that the office program was US American not Australian grammar. Mr X’s delusion of superior intelligence inner brain Neanderthal emotional decision making skills felt better than his on coming anxiety (worsening his depression) of being dumb being out played on his education’s language skills.

     An idea that rocket engines push against themselves argument words proving that rocket engines work in a no atmosphere environment the same as an atmosphere environments, feeds the delusional desires of people not to have been fooled.

I read Bobby’s post a week ago, that I intended to post a new post on the Newton's Third Law of Motion, yet I didn’t want to clog up the forum page with my many posts. I also had other better things to do.

steve9

     Artemis 2 on entering earth’s orbit at speeds my assumption using NASA Satin 5 (stated as the most powerful rocket ever built, posted speed googled around 5 years ago) orbiting earth speeds of 17,000 mph, Artemis 2 did a reported burn timed under 6 minutes, not mentioned the speed required to go the moon, my using watched documentaries of NASA engineers stating Apollo had a burn to take Apollo modules to the moon speed of 26,000 to 25,000 mph, enough speed to enter moon’s orbit at 3,000 mph 60 miles above the moon’s surface.

     A 6 minutes burn in a zero atmosphere environment using what’s seen as the last stage of the Artemis 2 rocket spacecraft, the module craft is not that large compared to what stood on the ground on earth, I’d say comparing the amount of oxygen and fuel seen on the ground needed to push Artemis rocket last stage module into orbit at 17,000 mph, the small sized Artemis module in orbit around earth, increased speeds from 17,000 mph to boosted speed of 25,000 mph, the 6 minute burn increased speed by 8,000 mph.

     I first considered G forces on astronauts may be an issue, except considering initial blast off from earth, I discounted a probable argument.
     I do contend an argument that the last stage orbiting module which must contain containers of breathable oxygen and charged batteries to last the many days of the mission takes up much of the available module storage room, yet fuel and liquid oxygen are required to burn fuel in outer space, I can’t imagine the module could perform a boost speed burn and several directional changes one of which not to crash on the moon’s surface due to the moon’s long reaching gravity, worse still on return journey to earth earth’s (6 times greater than the moon’s gravity) gravity pull pulling module(s) directly into the centre of earth at speeds around 24,000 mph, (head on) hitting earth’s atmosphere, changing direction from so much speed momentum energy, the module needs to perform to complete the mission, let alone how changing directions using Bobby’s “point of order” Newton’s theories “weight of fuels” drives spacecraft in outer space.

     There also exists an idea that even though liquid oxygen and fuel are burning in the rocket engine combustion chamber before hot gases leaving the combustion chamber out the rocket exhaust cone there must be a limit of speed exhaust gases can thrust rocket propelled spacecraft. I could assume the faster rocket propulsion against an atmosphere are required the more oxygen to fuel is required to allow more bang to the burn faster exhaust hot gases to expel out the exhaust cone. Increased oxygen required the more space is needed to hold increased amounts of liquid oxygen.

     If hot gases being expelled out of the rocket engine cone equals the speed a rocket spacecraft is travelling, no extra speed can be obtained, as well the speed margins between rocket engine expelled gases and rocket spacecraft speeds, increasing speed reduces as speed margins decline.

     My assumption based on above ideas, Artemis is not heading in the direction of the moon’s orbit.

     Apollo missions had much the same size modules heading off to the moon, as documentaries showed animated images of a module travelling through outer space, no mention of the moon’s gravity influences, nor how the size of the landing modules could reduce speeds of 3,000 mph orbiting around the moon speed to the 28 earth days moon surface rotation, the same moon area surface faces earth through those 28 days, I assume the moon surface speed was around 100 mph, that Apollo landing modules appearing to have little to no fuel carrying capacity required to slow modules down to moon surface speed nor to increase speed once landing module had left the moon’s surface to dock with the orbiting module.

     There are so many arguable seen faults in the Apollo mission images, I can assume images were designed to catch certain people’s attention.

steve9