|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 23, 2009 2:49:50 GMT -4
some people seem to think that rockets work by blasting all their fuel into a explosion all at once sending them flying after that. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 23, 2009 7:25:03 GMT -4
some people seem to think that rockets work by blasting all their fuel into a explosion all at once sending them flying after that. Honestly, I'm not kidding. Oh boy, someone needs to make them watch an actual rocket launch, or at least video thereof. If that doesn't cure them then they are in need of regular doses of the cluebat.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 23, 2009 8:48:10 GMT -4
some people seem to think that rockets work by blasting all their fuel into a explosion all at once sending them flying after that. Honestly, I'm not kidding. And some think a rocket is held up by its exhaust plume, like it's sitting on a pillar. Thanks, Laurel (No. 9), those are most likely the posts I was think of. If you keep this up, we're going to have to nominate you for the Champion Finder of Obscure Information prize.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 23, 2009 12:12:50 GMT -4
Still others think that rockets can't work in a vaccum because it needs atmosphere to push against. They use this to "prove" either that all space travel is fake or that deep space travel (outside of LEO) is fake (they say the atmosphere extends further than we are told) or the existence of an ether. Then there are the particularly clueless that believe the world is flat and that spacecraft float on top of the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 23, 2009 15:31:13 GMT -4
Still others think that rockets can't work in a vaccum because it needs atmosphere to push against. They use this to "prove" either that all space travel is fake or that deep space travel (outside of LEO) is fake (they say the atmosphere extends further than we are told) or the existence of an ether. Then there are the particularly clueless that believe the world is flat and that spacecraft float on top of the atmosphere. Yeah, just responded to a poster over on youtube about that very "misconception". It's something to behold, for sure...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 23, 2009 16:18:15 GMT -4
As I recall, the New York Times mocked Goddard because of just such a misconception. I seem to recall them printing a retraction for some reason . . . can't remember the day . . . .
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Sept 23, 2009 16:23:56 GMT -4
Still others think that rockets can't work in a vaccum because it needs atmosphere to push against. They use this to "prove" either that all space travel is fake or that deep space travel (outside of LEO) is fake (they say the atmosphere extends further than we are told) or the existence of an ether. Then there are the particularly clueless that believe the world is flat and that spacecraft float on top of the atmosphere. Yeah, just responded to a poster over on youtube about that very "misconception". It's something to behold, for sure... If it's the same guy, I've even offered to describe a practical experiment to show him how reaction thrust works. He didn't bite.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 23, 2009 16:52:12 GMT -4
And some think a rocket is held up by its exhaust plume, like it's sitting on a pillar. This is a particularly insidious misconception, for it entraps even highly-qualified engineers. Even Roger McCarthy, one of the finest engineers in the United States, got his explanation wrong on a television program. Rocket stability (non-aerodynamic) is rather counterintuitive. Common sense is wrong on that point.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 23, 2009 18:43:47 GMT -4
For heaven's sake, my old Girl Scout Handbook (printed circa 1978) has an experiment about equal and opposite reaction!
|
|
|
Post by toseek on Sept 23, 2009 19:03:31 GMT -4
1/6 gravity sounds to me like a reason the ascent should be fast, not slow. I guess one could come streaking in on the descent at a high rate of speed, firing the engine at full power, bringing the craft to a stop just as it touches down. But it seems like it would take an awful lot of practice to get that maneuver right, and there wouldn't be much margin for error ;D Those of us of a certain age might remember the lunar landing game written in BASIC that ran on computers in the mid-70's, including the one my high school had. It divided the descent into ten-second intervals and asked how much fuel you wanted to burn in any given ten seconds. Since the only limit enforced was the total amount of fuel onboard, I spent one afternoon seeing if I could get it to land softly by burning almost all of the fuel in the final ten seconds. I found I could, but it took forty or fifty crashes before I came up with a value that worked.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Sept 24, 2009 2:12:39 GMT -4
This reminds me of two things, which I most likely remember inaccurately: Some time ago there was an exasperated HB either here or at BAUT who wasn't gaining acceptance of his ideas, so he wrote, "It's not rocket science, you know!" Another party in the thread gently corrected him with, "Actually, it is." Then there was the infamous Moon Man, who thought there was something fishy when the Apollo 17 ascent stage "took off like a rocket." Dang! Damning evidence, taking off like a rocket! ROFLOL
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Sept 24, 2009 2:22:45 GMT -4
some people seem to think that rockets work by blasting all their fuel into a explosion all at once sending them flying after that. Honestly, I'm not kidding. Yes, I've been dealing with a 15 and 16 y/o...let's say in the standard H.S. program (I'm sort of a "great cousin" but family nomenclature...and well their folks...insist I'm an Uncle grrr lol)...well I sent for an Estes model rocket and a few extra engines, and showed them how those little solids work (bench test in a vise lol relax everyone in eye protection)...BING! Lights have gone on! ETA: Note To Myself "need to get to KSC to watch a launch in my lifetime" Closest I've seen is MRLS...btw firing over the interstate lol Final Note:The regular artillery fires over the interstate as well
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 24, 2009 4:55:27 GMT -4
As I recall, the New York Times mocked Goddard because of just such a misconception. I seem to recall them printing a retraction for some reason . . . can't remember the day . . . . July 17th 1969, the day after the Apollo 11 launch and some 24 years after Goddard's death.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 24, 2009 5:00:45 GMT -4
some people seem to think that rockets work by blasting all their fuel into a explosion all at once sending them flying after that. Honestly, I'm not kidding. Yes, I've been dealing with a 15 and 16 y/o...let's say in the standard H.S. program (I'm sort of a "great cousin" but family nomenclature...and well their folks...insist I'm an Uncle grrr lol)...well I sent for an Estes model rocket and a few extra engines, and showed them how those little solids work (bench test in a vise lol relax everyone in eye protection)...BING! Lights have gone on! ETA: Note To Myself "need to get to KSC to watch a launch in my lifetime" Closest I've seen is MRLS...btw firing over the interstate lol Final Note:The regular artillery fires over the interstate as well Important questions: Which interstate? What's their 'short' rate? ;D
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 24, 2009 13:43:21 GMT -4
Much of the simplest physics is counter intuitive for many people, and for some completely unintelligible. I read an article some time back by a college teacher of a “Physics for Jocks” kind of class. His research purpose in the class was to test how well teaching theory could help in the understanding of physics.
At the start of semester, he did a number of trials with the students, like having them hold a ball in an outstretched arm while quickly walking. They were to release the ball and hit a target on the ground. The result was that a significant number released the ball right over the target. Many were shocked when the ball flew past the target. Through the semester the class went through the basic theory with simple math and he redid the tests at the end of the semester. The results were better but many still released the ball on top of the target and made similar mistakes in the other tests. As I recall, the correlation between the performance in class and the improper release was relatively low. His conclusion was that traditional physics classes were a waste of time for a sizable number of students and a more hands on approach was a better way to reach them.
Then there are those that don’t get it and never will, we’ve all met someone like that. Just as there are those that just don’t understand poetry or art, etc. It just isn’t in the genes for some people. It’s hard to tell where Jarah and is ilk fall in the continuum of ability to understand, because there is no way to know tell if they have ever made an honest effort to learn.
|
|