I would like to preface this by saying that I do not in any way resemble a physicist - and I'm sure the crudeness of my work will confirm that, but I thought that this was so cool, I wanted to share it. I'm just a follower of physics. I understand that some of the concepts I'm going to be mentioning here are probably second-hand knowledge to a lot of you, but I still wanted to share. This originally started with me verifying for myself that the momentum of a rocket-fuel system indeed remains conserved. I'm certain that there are better ways to do what I have done, but I am unaware of them. Here's what I did. Using Excel, I tracked the instantaneous variables for a hypothetical rocket that instead of firing continuously, it fired "bursts" of thrust at even (but arbitrary) time intervals - ejecting equal amounts of mass with each burst at equal velocities. I tracked the cumulative momentum and mass of all the fuel that had been ejected as well as momentum and mass of the "remaining" mass (the rocket). To get the most simplistic results, I ejected 1 kg of mass at 1 m/s at equal intervals. The longest a row can be in Excel is 16K and some change, so basically, my beginning mass was 16,383 kg and 1 kg of mass was ejected at 1 m/s every arbitrary time interval until the "remaining" mass was 1kg. Each column calculated the "new" momentum, mass, velocities, etc. based on the previous column - which is why I was limited to 16,383 "steps". I did this several different ways, but the above is what was graphed and saved an image and uploaded here. By a "few different ways", I mean that I varied the initial mass, the velocity of the bursts and the mass of the bursts. I wanted to talk about a few things - The momentum didn't continually rise. This surprised me at first. I thought I had made a mistake, but once I started thinking about it, I came to this conclusion : At some point, the velocity of the ejected mass will be pointing the same direction as the rocket relative to the initial reference frame - in fact, once the rocket reaches the velocity the mass is being ejected at, all subsequent "bursts" will have negative velocity (assuming the positive direction is the direction of the first burst of mass),. so the combined momentum of all the ejected mass will start to decrease once that happens. The flip side of that is that the momentum of the rocket must decrease as well. This confused me. I know it MUST for the momentum to remain conserved, but I can't find a reason that satisfies me. The reason the momentum starts to decrease for the fuel became obvious, but not so much for the rocket. What is happening to make the momentum of the rocket begin to decrease - other than it MUST because the momentum of the ejected mass is decreasing? (I am talking about magnitude of the momentum. Technically the momentum of the ejected mass is getting bigger, but it's max is really a min since it's negative. I hope that doesn't confuse anyone.) I also noticed that no matter what, the point at which the momentum was at its greatest was the point that the rocket's mass was about 36.78% of its initial mass. I found this pretty remarkable. I did some research into this and found where this is actually a well-documented thing derived from the rocket equation (which I don't understand fully). Come to find out that the maximum/minimum momentum would be when the mass of the rocket is 1/e*initial mass - or about 36.78%. Again - I understand that this is common knowledge to some of you out there (if not most), but I just wanted to share my excitement. Thanks for reading. I have attached a graph, and I apologize for how convoluted it is. The 'x' axis are in units of arbitrary time intervals. The 'y' axis is just the units of either kg for mass or kg m/s for momentum. The arrow pointing to where the rocket mass and fuel momentum (same value as rocket momentum) is mass = 6,026 kg - which is 36.78% of the initial mass of 16,383 kg.