Why do rocket engines work in the vacuum of space?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sephiroth2088
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engines Rocket Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the functioning of rocket engines in the vacuum of space, exploring the principles of propulsion, the role of action and reaction forces, and historical misconceptions about rocket technology. Participants engage in both conceptual and technical explanations regarding how rockets generate thrust without a medium to push against.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reflects on a historical anecdote regarding the misconception that rockets cannot work in a vacuum, linking it to Newton's third law of motion.
  • Another participant states that a rocket pushes on its fuel, which is expelled at high speed, creating thrust in the opposite direction.
  • A clarification is made that a rocket engine operates by accelerating a fluid stream (fuel and oxidizer) to produce thrust, emphasizing Newton's third law.
  • Some participants discuss simpler analogies, such as the idea of throwing tennis balls to illustrate how movement can be achieved in space.
  • There is a humorous suggestion about using an oxygen supply hose to create thrust, highlighting the unconventional methods of propulsion in a vacuum.
  • Concerns are raised about the terminology used to describe combustion in rocket engines, with a distinction made between controlled combustion and explosions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the mechanics of rocket propulsion, with some clarifying misconceptions while others introduce analogies and humor. There is no consensus on the terminology used to describe combustion processes in rockets.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect historical misconceptions about rocket functionality in space, and there are varying interpretations of Newton's laws as they apply to rocket propulsion. The discussion includes informal analogies that may not fully capture the technical complexities involved.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the principles of rocket propulsion, physics students exploring Newton's laws, and those curious about historical perspectives on space travel technology may find this discussion informative.

Sephiroth2088
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a feeling someone is going to be like "Duhhh" on this one. But I got to thinking.

I recall reading somewhere that the guy that came up with the rocket engine for use in space got an F on his paper because "I think" the professor said that there would be nothing to push back on the rocket in space.

So I got to thinking, I know Einstein said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... well.. for example I push a wall, it's pushing back on me with equal force.

However a rocket in space pushes on well.. a vaccuum, a vacuum can push back?

In the same way I know that if I was surrounded by air and waved my arms around in a gravityless room with air inside I would move. But if I was in a space suit in space and did this I feel that I wouldn't move, because their is nothing to push back.
 
Science news on Phys.org
A rocket pushes on it's fuel
 
Sephiroth2088 said:
...I know Einstein said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
No. No. No. Try Newton.
 
A rocket expels part of it's own mass (burnt fuel) at a very high rate of speed. The spent fuel goes one direction, the rocket goes the other direction.
 
In 1920 the New York Times stated that rockets would not work beyond the atmosphere (they published a correction in 1969)
 
Sephiroth2088 said:
However a rocket in space pushes on well.. a vaccuum, a vacuum can push back?
A rocket engine (or any other reaction engine) only "pushes" on the fluid stream inside it. It carries both fuel and oxidizer (for a bi-propellant system) on board so it can operate in an atmosphere like space.

The ignition of the fuel creates an acceleration in the fluid stream which causes the exhaust stream to exit at a much higher velocity. Due to Newton's 3rd law, the reaction of accelerating that fluid stream to a higher velocity creates a reaction force in the opposite direction, i.e. thrust.
 
Perhaps a simpler picture is to imagine the exploding fuel pushing on the top of the fuel tank as it jets out of the bottom.
 
mgb_phys said:
Perhaps a simpler picture is to imagine the exploding fuel pushing on the top of the fuel tank as it jets out of the bottom.
That certainly is a more simple picture. Although, any burner designer would cringe at you using the word "exploding." There is a desired and controlled combustion process that happens but let's not get picky.
 
  • #10
Sephiroth2088 said:
In the same way I know that if I was surrounded by air and waved my arms around in a gravityless room with air inside I would move. But if I was in a space suit in space and did this I feel that I wouldn't move, because their is nothing to push back.

You're right you wouldn't move. What you need to do to move in space is reach into the duffel of tennis balls you cleverly brought with you and start throwing them away from you one at a time as hard as you can**. That will get you moving. And by logical extension of thrown tennis balls to thrown atoms of gas, you can see why a rocket works quite well.


**BTW, you don't need vacuum to use this technique. It will work nicely sitting on an office chair or on an ice rink too (at least, in principle).
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
What you need to do to move in space is reach into the duffel of tennis balls you cleverly brought with you and start throwing them away from you one at a time as hard as you can**.

If you're as lazy as I am, however, it's a lot easier to temporarily disconnect your oxygen supply hose and direct it rearward. (Note that the term temporary is very important to the success of the manoeuvre.)
 
  • #12
FredGarvin said:
Although, any burner designer would cringe at you using the word "exploding."

It's the memory of my mechanics professor, with a very strong Austrian accent - after calculating the burn rate needed to get a Satrun V off the ground ( something like 20t/s) he says "Zis is not burning - zis is exploding"
Not chemically correct but a good description of 20t of rocket fuel a second going bang!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K