Rockets in space

[Kiwi]

margamatix said:

Can you point me in the direction of any evidence that any Earth-originating craft has ever landed on, then taken off from, an extra-terrestrial body using rocketry?

No, I thought not.

Soviet lunar sample return missions and Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 lunar modules to mention a few.

Surveyor V landed on the moon, took off briefly and landed again and I have a fair idea that it did it with rockets instead of rubber bands and propellors:

Manawatu Evening Standard, Monday 25 September 1967, page 1
Moondust no problem
NZPA-Reuter — Copyright. Washington, Sept. 24.

Space ship exhausts are not likely to raise enough dust on the moon to be a hazard to astronauts, according to tests carried out by America's Surveyor V spacecraft.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials said no appreciable dust cloud had been created when three small rocket engines under the spacecraft, which landed on the moon earlier this month, were fired.

The test was made to observe the effect of the rocket exhaust as it hit the lunar surface. Had a dust cloud been raised, it might have seriously impaired the visibility of astronauts returning to earth after a moon mission.

Photographs of the surface immediately under the rocket showed that no craters were made nor any dust raised when the engines were operated. A picture taken before the rocket firing showed four or five "clumps" of lunar soil in the area. After the firing only one remained, and only a small "blob" of dust was detected on the outer surface of the Surveyor.

"This information indicates there will be no problem associated with the effects of the rocket exhaust," the officials said.

More pictures under different light conditions are still to be taken to see whether a mirror under the spacecraft was fitted or otherwise obscured by scattered lunar soil particles.

[Retrograde]

kiwi said:

and I have a fair idea that it did it with rockets instead of rubber bands and propellors:

Well, that's what they want you to believe ;D

[Kiwi]

It seems that Margamatix might still think that rocket engines don't work in a vacuum.

We tried to help him here:
apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1130546230

For instance:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970, Volume 19, page 418, "Fundamental Principles of Rocket Propulsion":
The thrust does not result, as sometimes erroneously presumed, from the jet pushing against the surrounding air.

Perhaps he should be correcting the Britannica and every other encyclopedia.

[gwiz]

Using the technique from the "Apollo out of isolation" thread, we can point out to margamatix that without rockets that work in a vacuum, satellite TV, GPS navigation, satellite weather pictures, and the military's reconnaissance satellites would all be impossible. Furthermore, if rockets don't work in a vacuum, why does the USAF build a large and expensive facility to carry out rocket ground tests in as near a vacuum as they can get?

It's hardly worth putting this in the "Apollo out of isolation" thread, as margamatix appears to alone among the HBs in actually believing this. Seeing the New York Times as the ultimate authority on the truth of Newtonian mechanics, I ask you.

[Bob B.]

gwiz said:

Using the technique from the "Apollo out of isolation" thread, we can point out to margamatix that without rockets that work in a vacuum, satellite TV, GPS navigation, satellite weather pictures, and the military's reconnaissance satellites would all be impossible.

Why stop here? All orbital space flight would be impossible if rockets couldn't operate in a vacuum. The upper stage of any launch vehicle burns while above the atmosphere.

gwiz said:

Furthermore, if rockets don't work in a vacuum, why does the USAF build a large and expensive facility to carry out rocket ground tests in as near a vacuum as they can get?

NASA's Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio also has a facility to test rocket upper stages under near vacuum conditions.

facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/index.html
www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/butowsky4/space7.htm

[piper]

Kinda pointless thread, since it's not very fair making fun of someone who's been banned.

[LunarOrbit]

What you call "making fun of someone" we call "trying to educate someone".

[Bob B.]

I can't speak for others, but I wasn't making fun of anyone in this thread. Also note that the last post prior to Piper's was 88 minutes before LunarOrbit informed us margamatrix had been banned, hence he was still an active member as far as any of us knew.

[piper]

I realize his banning wasn't known when the thread was started, I merely wanted to point it out in case some wanted to direct comments or questions at him.

What you call "making fun of someone" we call "trying to educate someone".

I have to agree that he was in need of some education on a few topics. I just thought this particular one had been covered in the "Apollo out of Isolation" thread.