Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber – Newton’s third law of motion Visualized

Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber – Newton’s third law of motion Visualized


Everybody ready. 321. No. Welcome back. After watching some Flat Earth videos. And conspiracy theorist. This stuff started getting into my head. So this time I’m going to legitimately challenge
Newton’s third law. To demonstrate is it a law or a lie. So I set out to build a bigger better vacuum
chamber. That’s going to give us undeniable results. I am genuinely curious as to. How Newton’s third law is going to behave
in the environment of a vacuum. We’re in this case. The Rocket won’t have an atmosphere to push
against. Alright we got our vacuum chamber completed. The only thing I have left to do is get the
top seal on. Get the top cover in place. And test it. In order for this experiment to give us reliable
results. I contacted the AIAA team at UIC. Turns out they have some solid rocket propellant. On hand ready to go. So I headed it down to their lab. Which was a very interesting place by the
way. They gave me. Not only the solid rocket propellant. Is this the actual propellant?. I thought it would be heavier than this. Feels kind of light. This is our solid rocket right here. But everything else that I need. To build a miniature version of a solid rocket
booster period similar to what Nasa uses. I believe this is going to give us more concrete
results. Not based off of black powder rockets. That well. Nobody Burns in space in the first place. Now that I have the vacuum chamber built. This vacuum chamber is going to allow me. To pull a complete vacuum. But before moving on to the experiment. I want to do some initial testing. to make sure that this vacuum chamber is safe
to use. And that it holds the vacuum. Make sure we don’t have any leaks or anything
like that. So let’s test it out. Perfect. First and foremost since Motors produce
a lot more thrust. Then the black powder Motors I used in the
previous episodes. I had to come up with a better way to mount
them. In the vacuum chamber. This is what I came up with. This is like against all possible rules. The team even named it the four legged spider. Hold on. That’s a different movie. Second and most important we need to measure
thrust. This is going to be our thrust scale. I think for this I’m going to go low-tech
old school. I have a feeling that the team was quite impressed. Oh is that what we’re using. With my practical approach to this problem. That’s pretty good that’ll work. Now that I have all that figured out. It’s time to assemble our rocket motor properly. Mount it in the vacuum chamber with the scale. To measure the thrust. And run our chamber through the first partial
vacuum test. Hang on it’s vacuuming down. I would give it one more second then hit it. Hit it hit it go. Go. Perfect it all happened so fast. So we know Rockets burn. I’m going to install a new rocket motor in
the casing. This is our nozzle and our nozzle retainer. Reset the experiment. And only one question remains. Sir Isaac Newton does your law still apply. Over 330 years later. In a vacuum ?. Well I hope you’re watching
because. We’re about to find out. Alright we got our blast shield in place
for safety. Our vacuum chamber is in a vacuum. Are rocket is set wired up and ready to go. And yeah I’m excited. The only thing I have left to do is take these
two wires. Touch them to the terminals on this battery. And hopefully it doesn’t go boom. Hopefully it just goes Swoosh. Everybody ready here it goes. What a Hang Fire no Not a Hang Fire. No freaking way you got to be kidding me. So apparently I have some findings from the
first phase of the experiment. And that is I just realized that the vacuum
has now created an environment. Where it becomes more difficult to ignite
the solid rocket booster. This means that there is some truth to what
the conspiracy theorist think. It’s more difficult to ignite a solid rocket booster in
a vacuum. Because we tried this in atmospheric pressure
and it ignited just fine. I mean that’s definitely an interesting finding. I have just one more problem. Due to the rapid depressurisation of the chamber after that
last attempt. One of the seams was compromised. I need to re-weld that seem. And put in a couple of supports where the
deflection occurred. That demonstration gives you an example of
just how much force. Pulling up vacuum in a chamber like this has. It’s essentially at sea level 14.7 PSI. which
is 14.7 lb for every square inch pushing in on each side of this chamber. So if you do the math which I already did. It’s about 80,000 pounds combined. So you have 20,000 pounds on each one of these
walls trying to cave this thing in. Since that last attempt was a failure. I invited the AIAA team over for the rest
of the experiment. Because I know how much they love hangfire’s. And they have a lot more experience with this
propellant than I do. In case I run into any more issues along the
way. So pretty much all of that smoke that came
out was the ignitor nothing else. And I think they’re in for a big surprise. Because I don’t think it’s going to be that
easy to ignite in a full vacuum but we’ll see. Alright I would hit it now, 321. Ooooh. Ooooh. There you go, that is the problem we’re having
all along. What do you think Mike?. We can repack and ignitor and try it again. Looks like we may need some atmospheric pressure
in the actual booster. To get it to ignite. Once it’s ignited I think it’s going to do
okay. What do you think Mike?. we’ll try it again It could be from the lack of air, from the
type of ignitor, from the cap being on it, hard to say. So do you think once it’s lit in a vacuum
it’s going to stay lit?. It should it’s got its own oxidizer. Let’s see what it looks like. All that smoke. And it looks like the igniter kind of ignited
right. Yeah it definitely did. look at that it kind of ignited but it
doesn’t look like it fully ignited. This is going to be our second attempt. We have another igniter in place. What do we do differently this time?. We changed out with a completely new motor. This is the old one that we just test fired. Yeah I don’t think the motors the problem
though I think it’s the vacuum. We will try and see what happens. That’s a brand new motor and a brand new ignitor. We doubled them up this time, alright,
I’m feeling good let’s do it . 3-2-1 go go go. Oh no it failed. go go go oh no it failed. No more power right, no. That was very strange. This was our 3rd attempt here and it was a
failure as you saw in the footage. My recommendation is. These guys didn’t think that this was going
to be a problem, I did however. I called it I said this thing may give us
issues to light. So the next thing that I suggest is I think
we should seal it up. I’m going to modify this rocket motor. I think once it’s ignited it’s going to create
some internal pressure and keep burning. But that’s not what I’m challenging here. I am challenging Newton’s Laws. I want to see if when it burns in a vacuum. If it creates a reaction that produces thrust. So this is our fourth attempt and what we
did different this time. Is we made a ruptured disc on the outside
of the nozzle. And this is going to hold atmospheric pressure
on the inside the motor until ignition occurs. And the idea is this thing is going to pop
out. And the motor is going to light Ignite and
burn normally. That’s the key word burn normally. our solid rocket motor burned in a vacuum. As you can see that was a success. Not only that are solid rocket motor burn
in a vacuum. But it also produced thrust. During those initial moments of ignition. Which is exactly what I was looking for
to support Newton’s third law. Because any thrust produced under these conditions. Is produced off of the pure reaction of the
fuel burning. And not from the thrust pushing against air
or an atmosphere. Now something that I found really interesting. Was where the main ignition occurred. If you look closely at the high-speed footage you can see The majority of the gas started to ignite
in the vacuum chamber. Not right behind the rocket motor as I would
expect. I’m not sure why that is but that looked pretty
cool. Regardless of our gauge readings for our vacuum
chamber. The vacuum was obviously sufficient. Because this was our fourth attempt. We had to modify the rocket motor in order
to get it to ignite in the vacuum chamber. That being said I’m just going to do one more
experiment. I’m going to get a really small model Rocket motor. 1/10 the size of this solid rocket booster. And put it in this same chamber. What that’s going to do is essentially increase
the amount of volume in our chamber by 10. Since that motor is 1/10 the size of this
motor. And this Burns a little bit slower than a
solid rocket booster. We’re going to be able to see whether or not
it’s creating thrust in a vacuum. And that’s going to further validate Newton’s
third law. Alright here goes. Okay so that was another successful burn. The model rocket motor burned just fine in
the vacuum chamber. Unfortunately it didn’t go exactly as planned. Because the sled got wedged in between the
walls of the chamber when I pulled a deeper vacuum. But if you look closely at the motor when
it first ignited It produced some thrust. And it pushed itself into the casing of the
motor where it was being held. That to me further supports Newton’s third
law. Apparently it applies in a vacuum as well
as atmospheric pressure. Yeah I think that was enough proof for me. Hopefully you enjoyed this episode. feel free to share, subscribe, tell me what
you think in the comments below. This was a tough one. This was a long shoot. I had a lot of issues here. So many issues that Discovery is gone. They left yesterday they ran out of time. My crew is gone and I finished the entire
episode all by myself. So hopefully you enjoyed it. Check out our other videos here. Check us out on Discovery. Hasta luego. Ate mais . Chao Chow.

Antonio Breitenberg

Related Posts

100 thoughts on “Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber – Newton’s third law of motion Visualized

  1. Steven Curtis says:

    Here's a quandary for anyone who believes rockets don't work in space. Say you're in space and you're just floating. You're wearing a spacesuit and holding a basketball. You then decide to throw the basketball. Does the basketball move? If not, what's stopping it? If it does move, do you move the other way? If you do, then that's how rockets work in space. If you don't move, then why are you so different from the basketball in this physical interaction?

  2. P G says:

    You proved nothing….

  3. space munky says:

    Placing a lid on your glass coffin does not give you a vaccum you just trapped air in the plastic chamber

  4. Kelly Carmouche says:

    Vacuum in “space”, is not the same as a small vacuum chamber that does not and cannot replicate deep space. Once induced burn starts, vacuum is lost in chamber, and test is invalid. Watch ignition and pressurization of chamber at ignition. In an enclosed chamber,there can be thrust due to loss of vacuum and walls to bounce off on,. Nice try. Principles of physics.

  5. Zurkster says:

    Without gravity, thrust has only to overcome the initial 'zero momentum' of the mass its attached to. An atmosphere helps to push against, but is not an essential factor to moving and accelerating any stationary mass in the opposite direction to the exhaust vector. Noting that the exhaust gases being developed in the chamber may also adversely effect propulsive force measurements as they accumulated, this limitation would not apply in the expanse of a space sized vacuum. After all a small jet of cold gas is all it takes to make attitude adjustments while wearing a space suit.

    This is my opinion, I could be wrong.

  6. well mybrow says:

    why is the rocket in a sealed container? is that needed to stop the air we breathe to be separated from the vacuum of space? under the dome !

  7. Fitroh Hadi says:

    What about zero gravity?

  8. Juan Andrés says:

    It have trust and a fucking mountain

  9. ENTENDENDO A BÍBLIA says:

    Interessante
    Parabéns pelo seu trabalho

  10. ragnhild thingstad says:

    Nice experiment, but the thrust power you measure "in vacuum" is actually the rocket engines pressure on the wall end of your test box!!!! Try the same experiment in a tube that is 1 kilometer long and 10 meter diameter. That will eliminate pressure achieved from the solid surroundings and better simulating an empty space. Now, if that works then we can talk again 🙂

  11. Wyatt Hart says:

    You have a supra and don't even say anything about it. 1:07

  12. Sonny Hood says:

    Rockets carry oxygen to allow the flame to burn. Did they try it with oxygen, or hydrogen peroxide

  13. Josh Meyer says:

    YO IS DAT A SUPRA!!! xD

  14. Qruns El says:

    Anyone with a bit of brain, knows that as soon as it lit, the vacuum was lost. You dont believe me? Go back to the video and go to the 10:10 – 10:20 mark, and watch the vac gauge. You will see that it lost all vac. Good video, for someone without a brain in their head, that wants to be deceived. It is also a good video for someone who has a good eye, and sense enough to look at the vac gauge, to prove you wrong.

  15. Xeno Bardock says:

    Two ways rocket can work in space. One way is TNT exploding fuel or nukes and causing strong recoil effect, and the other way is ejecting water under pressure with great force like how a hose thrusts when water is ejected with great force from a hose. The way that doesn't work in space is just ejecting gases in space because ejected gases require to push against earths atmosphere in order to produce thrust in opposite direction, this is not the case with explosions and water ejection. For gas ejection to work in vacuum of space, ejected gases will have to be absurdly dense so vacuum doesn't quickly expand and dissipate gases in all directions, might as well just use water ejection instead which will be much more efficient for thrust in space compared to gas ejection.

  16. Sebastian Observer says:

    What is it that assures me that this rocket does not generate pressure on the other wall of your vacuum chamber? Why do not you go to the vacuum chamber of the nasa where the rocket does not generate pressure on anything? quite limited and rare your experiment … BS

  17. Nick Vrolix says:

    You had the fucking scales and backwall for the fucking rocked to push against this proofs nothing but that u Guys are scam artists!!……….

  18. Ference Kurfis says:

    This only worked because it was not a true vacuum. He added some atmosphere. How can you thrust in vacuum? There is nothing to push off. It’s a vacuum. That’s why he could not get ignition over and over? Until he added some air.

  19. Guilherme Burjato says:

    Nasa Lies, always!

  20. Reggin Swej says:

    There was no vacuum, lol.

  21. Kd Ruckman says:

    Newton's third law applies to rockets in the vacuum of space . What people don't understand is that action of a rocket expelling rapidly expanding gases into the infinite vacuum of space has a value equal to zero . The equal and opposite reaction also has a value equal to zero .
    It's a non-event .

  22. Jono Edwards says:

    Makes You wonder if the Astronauts feel,, felt the thrust change performance as they leave, left the Earths Atmosphere?
    Mmm,,, "Newton, We have a problem!"
    Great Study WP.

  23. Ken Is Free says:

    GLUE TO TURN A NON VAC TO A VAC LOL

  24. Will Ernst says:

    Many tests of solid rockets have been done in vacuums. You don't need a burning rocket to see if a rocket works. You can use just a cold gas. The same physics applies to just a puff of gas in a vacuum as to a rocket. This whole pushing against the atmosphere is a bunch of shit. We experience these laws every day when we throw things, I can't even fathom how people could believe this crap and still use GPS with out issues. The satellites are in space you morons

  25. thailand192 says:

    The fcuking lid opened

  26. flatearth crypto says:

    globetards r funny

  27. flatearth crypto says:

    small containers trying to be space hahahahh

  28. flatearth crypto says:

    space has no walls to push a vac purge does first of all. all that pressure in a box cant help prove nasa anything. nasa a masonic fraud and we just gonna sue nasa to prove their shot lol. we want our money back. period

  29. flatearth crypto says:

    thrust in space would make something just spiral outta control. no directional steering period.

  30. Pat Byron says:

    200 proofs lads and ladies arc

  31. Pat Byron says:

    you cannot get past the firmament .
    why not launch it sideways ?
    😀 no more ridulous than launching it in a curve

  32. Dane302 says:

    How could you post this……so very flawed. Very insufficient vacuum.

  33. Cathartic Canuck says:

    8:30 um, ya…..get used to it. Space is NOT a vacuum…however, I will give those defending it is, credit for their persistence, and arrogance.
    Prob best to answer a more pressing concern re:vacuum of space before you try and prove rockets in a vacuum..that is where does this magic vacuum of space start?? The exact moment i would be in magic vacuum space if i could lie well enough, and pretend i had a rocket that could fly out of low earth orbit…where does this vacuum of space begin….exactly, absolutely, begin?

  34. Philippe Rockholt says:

    Non sense! That chamber is not sealed properly by just resting the top without proper hardware holding it air tight. You just don’t rest a piece of plexiglass on top and expect to work. Hahahahahhaah!

  35. Philippe Rockholt says:

    You guys are clowns to expect this cartoon science to be real. Hahahahahah!

  36. jewel jinan says:

    That Supra though 😍😘

  37. Jon Halley says:

    Dude… the smoke you let off in your tiny confined chamber gave it thrust. This is nothing like space…. you fucked up the entire experiment.

  38. Jeffery Simmons says:

    Rockets cannot fly in the vacuum of space. There's a video of small drones and house flies being tested in a vacuum chamber, and the end result is a bunch of flies and drones motionless at the bottom. Once the chamber was pressurized the flies and drones were able to fly. Now one of you Rocket Scientist please explain why these flies and drones couldn't obtain lift when trying to fly in this vacuum chamber!🚀🚀🚀

  39. pepe the frog says:

    Unfortunately, explaining simple physics to flat earthers gets you over 3k dislikes

  40. Zetetic Flat Earth says:

    I honestly feel sorry for your stupidity and gullibility. Pseudoscience is not science. Where does the "vacuum of space" start on your constantly speeding and spinning imaginary Globe Earth? Can you tell me genius? Of course not! Because your Globe Earth THEORY is a science fiction; assumption and speculation and not a fact. You are a brainwashed individual, unfortunately like the rest of 99% of humanity. And btw, your "experiment" is a fraud! Creating a vacuum of space using a duck tape? Buahaha! Give me a f break. You people are idiots. Idiots. There is no words to describe your stupidity. You are mentally ill; retarded! Do you believe that NASA landed on the Moon as well and that ISS is flying with people 300 miles above spinning 1000mph and speeding around the Sun 67,000mph BALL EARTH? Trust your senses and not bunch of money hungry snakes (NASA, ESA and their followers) who basically perform crime against humanity on a daily basis and 99% of people is so brainwashed and unable to think logically and analyze stuff that give them standing ovation… So pathetic!

  41. Sam Babbitt says:

    Dude! There is no truth to what conspiracy theorists think, OK? They're fucking mental. They voted for trumpf and they are very stupid.

  42. Phil Indeblanc says:

    Success? You really didnt challenge anything here except show how flawed a conclusion can be from a failed test setup. Great effort though

  43. Andromeda Junky says:

    @Dr. David Banner F.E.S.
    In response to your theory that you can't accelerate beyond 1mph, because the basket ball is moving away too fast. Yes, you are correct. By throwing 1 basket ball, you are never going to exceed 1mph. But your expectation of how acceleration works, is not correct. If you hold a car at half throttle, it will only ever reach 50% of its max speed. Eventually the road is moving away from the car at least as fast as the wheels can push off. So what do you do if you want to accelerate to 100% of your max speed? You increase thrust, by increasing fuel input/consumption. You hold the car to 100% throttle. In terms of our basketball example, you DON'T continue to throw just 1 basketball. You throw 2 basket balls at once, to increase to 2 mph. Then three basketballs at once, to increase to 3 mph. The example you provided, was continually consuming the same amount of fuel(aka throwing 1 basketball continually), and expecting to continually accelerate faster. To accelerate and maintain faster speeds, you have to consume more fuel. If you want to go twice as fast, you have to throw at least twice the mass at once(for example, throwing 2 basketballs at once, one time every second) so that you have something heavier to push off from, or throwing the same mass at a faster rate(throwing 1 basket several times per second), to keep up with the mass that is moving away from you faster(that is what a car technically does with it's wheels). This increase in consumption of fuel is why if you have a lead foot and accelerate or cruse with the pedal to the floor, your car will drink gas like a whale, compared to gently accelerating and maintaining normal cruising speeds. What your example actually proves, is that every vehicle, no matter what type of fuel or propulsion it uses, and no matter on what medium it is traveling, will eventually level out and hit a top speed that is equal to the amount thrust being produced, relative to the amount of fuel being consumed to produce the thrust. So yeah, if you aren't capable of increasing the number of basket balls you can throw, you will top out at 1 mph, and never go faster.

  44. A1Zealot says:

    Man, sorry for all the flak you’re getting on this one. I guess I see their points and was thinking the same thing about it not being a vacuum after ignition. I just assumed you kept the vacuum pump running the whole time to mitigate the rise in pressure. I think this test was about as good as you can do in your workshop and I still enjoyed watching it! Keep up the great work, I’ve been watching your channel for a year of 2 now!

  45. TR- Labs says:

    I hope this guy didn't jet paid for this fail experiment. What a stupid person with no skills of CFM's!

  46. Kurt T says:

    Just put a normal prop in there…feed some dust/debris into it.. then record the results. or setup up a second vacuum chamber connected to the first with a one way valve then (using very exactingly matched rockets) measure rocket propulsion under varying atmospheric pressures then remove any test results where the one way valve is actuated .. then extrapolate mathematically how much thrust a rocket would produce in a complete vacuum environment. btw you would prob need very very small rockets and very delicate/accurate measuring devices.

  47. charles regan says:

    WOW

  48. Michal Matas says:

    Your plastic structure would collapse, when you will evacuate all air from it. this experiment of yours is a lie.

  49. Albert Smith says:

    This experiment is total nonsense because a perfect vacuum was never achieved. And as someone else said the burning rocket broke any small amount of vacuum that was achieved.

  50. Stephen R says:

    3rd law clearly shows that motor expells force one way, rocket will go the other way. There's no need for a mass to push against.

  51. Thomas Moore says:

    at 8:47 I notice a gap in the lid. right where the 2×4 is pushed against the lid. half way down the length. with a gap there is no vacuum and therefore makes the project useless…

  52. Dave H says:

    Is that a rocket engine you're using there or a firework? Looks like the latter to me.

    Also it's possible that the firework could be using the far end of the vacuum chamber as an object to push against.. still, interesting to watch 🙂👍

  53. Bruno lopes says:

    "the conspiacy teorists have some reason…" thats why nasa dont use solid rockets on space ….

  54. Peter Alford-Seymour says:

    This was a failure.

  55. Bobby Booshay says:

    The comments are hilarious!
    Loads of ignorant people on this earth.

  56. James FLAT-EARTH says:

    I call bs

  57. romanmel1 says:

    You'd need more than a cheep thin Plexiglas box to create a true vacuum…get real!!!!

  58. slojoegt Stang says:

    Newton is a dick!

  59. Chris Smith says:

    I really liked your video. Thank you for going through all the trouble. I wish you showed us the vacuum pump setup and what the readings were throughout the experiment. Also I'd like to see what the amount of force generated was with an atmosphere and in a vacuum to compare.

  60. jys10101 says:

    video of vacuum gauge is also got to be constantly monitored

  61. Rich Brewer says:

    obviously NOT a perfect vacuum. FAIL!!!

  62. Matthew Holloway says:

    WOW. TRY TO CONVINCE ENGINEERS VACUUM = NO OXYGEN. 0 OXYGEN = NO FLAME… LMAO

  63. matthew clark says:

    I was proven wrong so i had to go get some people to help me rig it up to get the results i want . 😂😂😂

  64. flat world says:

    Don't worry space is a hoax 😁

  65. p cha says:

    Dunno, if you throw a basketball, I have no idea if it moves or if you move at all. Unless I experience it myself I have no way of knowing tbh

  66. Fiona Marie says:

    Another very simple experiment to consider (vacuum or no) is firing a camera flash into a cookie tin. You will hear a faint sound of something colliding with the tin bottom although the only thing moving in this experiment is light. In a vacuum you will obviously not hear a sound, but you could still detect the impact on the surface. In a microgravity vacuum the force will put the flash and the tin in motion in opposite directions – or just the flash, if you have no tin. Why would it be so difficult to believe that shooting out gas will produce the same effect when arguably light has a lot less mass than gas molecules. And to emphasise an already mentioned point: no, a vacuum doesn't pull on anything, the pressure is just moving towards an equilibrium, just like it does within an environment with atmospheric pressure. The law doesn't change just because the pressure is very, very low.

  67. Raji C says:

    How does it burns in vacuum ,without oxygen

  68. Philip Tooley says:

    Put Brian Cocks, Neil my ass-tyson, and Bill lie in a 'space suite' then put them in the giant vacuum chamber. When their bodies pop we can all put the space bullshit behind us and save 58 million a day

  69. Eric Jarvie says:

    Well if the conspiracy theorists didn't understand the expulsion of gases under combustion didn't produce an equal and opposite reaction vacuum or otherwise..then your experiment has proved this…but why did you have to modify the solid fuel is the only question i would raise though it does not disprove newton's law it's an interesting point…

  70. dave berry says:

    Elizabeth has a point, in space, a burning rocket won't fill up. but your burning rocket motor fills up that vacuum to a degree instantly

  71. pedrozs1 says:

    launch a stratospheric balloon in the middle of the night, if you see any sunshine, the earth is flat.

  72. Bart Simpson says:

    Test invalid. Even if this vacuum chamber would work (clearly it doesn't) produced thrust would be pushing against 🌎 gravity .

  73. dwheel39 says:

    Can you build a larger vacuum chamber and demonstrate how gases shield water from boiling as its alleged about earth being a ball coated with gases in a vacuum at 10 minus 17 Tor.?

  74. dwheel39 says:

    How can there be a vacuum of space (10 minus 17 Tor)? Did the 2nd law of thermodynamics take a vacation? All the gases would expand into the vacuum. That's logical and demonstrably scientific. So you can demonstrate how gravity holds down gases in a vacuum?

  75. Samuel Ortiz says:

    They dont even give the rocket an oxidizer what a joke

  76. Samuel Ortiz says:

    I bet you apes that believe in this dont even know why vacuums exist

  77. Hunter says:

    Great work

  78. Jeremy Kiser says:

    Questians. Wow!!!!! That might be groundbreaking info that corporations usually find!!!! There were pulses in the smoke in the slowmo, did they match with the pulses of the pump? If scaled up with multiple pumps would there be harmony/ the waves? How much pressure was loss with the extremes put in this vacuum? This experiment and the questions answered would be a great doctoral thesis!!!! Wow!!!!!!!!! Mind blowing!!!!!

  79. john biggins says:

    Nasa is missing this genius

  80. Al Crooks says:

    First off the vacuum chamber is to small when the rocket finally lights it eliminated the vacuum space is supposedly infinite. Bogus experiment. Are you going climb out of the spaceship to fix the rocket five times. Total failure

  81. Ricardo Chavarin says:

    The rockets made combustion with a nitrogeno liquid and querosen to use in a empy spaces i tink u made with a liquid fourm maybe you get moore traction use NTO

  82. chemical mike says:

    12:32 I'm no expert, but I suspect the volume of the chamber may have been the reason for this? Molecules from the propellant are trapped in that small area,right? Peace, and I enjoyed this vid. I'm not making rockets like you, but I stil think its really cool. 😀

  83. Darko Rafael says:

    liars….it is not vacum in this stupid primitive box like you showed to as…idiots..shame on you gays

  84. George Sparks says:

    What a joke.

  85. Lance Hunter says:

    It appears the pressure gauge in tests 2&3 is at 11 o’clock- in test 4 it is at 7 o’clock. Why the discrepancy?

  86. Donksplat123 says:

    Nonsense vacuum experiment ….

  87. Justin Dailey says:

    I have a question. I’m sure some of you here have been to space before, so I value your life experience on this one. Does a space boulder ignite and burn its way into our atmosphere with intent to land on our great planet? Or does it simply catch fire on its way down? Or in? Or… however it appears to be traveling when we finally see it with our naked eye?

  88. Ben Wilson says:

    What type of ignition did you use? Solid propellant is really difficult to ignite anyway. We used to use E-matches to ignite a small chunk of thermite, then bank on that lighting the propellant. The ignitor doesn't have its own oxidizer, so if it has to burn itself for a bit to ignite the propellant, it's going to struggle to do so without air. I have a bunch of solid propellant that is diffult to get burning with a lighter, but once it starts, it burns great

  89. J Wood says:

    Wow, this is what you get when mouth breathing morons doesn't understand true vaccum.

  90. calvin klein tormo says:

    This is from land air sea and space . they said they don't use solid rocket. to burn the rocket in space they use liquid oxygen because to ignite the rocket it's needed an oxygen like here on earth to make fire you need oxygen that's how i rocket work in space

  91. kamen ninov says:

    this is not a vacuum chamber!! do you really think we are that DUMB !? I can clearly see the wire going inside the box…. You ARE FAKE ! goodluck !

  92. I C Flat Ndatsdat! says:

    My personal observation was ……the experiment failed when you could see the whole box. And then it worked when you COULDN'T see the whole box.
    Gotta say fail

  93. Xeno Bardock says:

    They don't really use rockets in space anyway, not for traveling to another planets. They use undisclosed anti-gravity propulsion which is based in aether physics, not conventional physics. Only scientists who are sworn to secrecy are taught aether physics by military. Read books "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" and "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism". Check videos by "Mark Mccandlish" and "Paul Laviolette". As for proof of aether, the simplest proof of aether is in plain sight in the form of magnetic field. Magnets don't emit magnetic field, they manipulate aether around it forming an aether vortex scientific community calls magnetic field. You can also do simple experiment of spinning or moving strong magnet to create waves in aether and observe the effect of waves on cathode ray tube from 30+ft away. Also aether acts as a medium for electromagnetic waves and light waves. There is no such thing as empty space.

  94. Philippine Space Technologies says:

    This expiriment
    Rocket: 1-3x FAIL
    4x time Succes

    SpaceX
    Rocket:1-3x FAIL
    Succes 4x

    LOL agree if you observed

  95. MoneyIsSilver says:

    This video sounds like bullshit in the first 3 seconds when he conflates flat earth with rockets working in the vacuum of space. That is an old trick called "poisoning the well". Stick to science, bud

  96. MoneyIsSilver says:

    As if the guy who make this video has an IQ over 12. He's a big lumphead. What kind of idiot thinks he has a vacuum when its a closed space filling with gasses from the rocket? DUH

  97. SCIENTECH says:

    Very good!!

  98. Clayton Holmes says:

    Your vacuum is not airtight you can see where the air came out of it on the first launch😂

  99. Sekai Ni Heiwa says:

    Imagine navigating your rocket" in a vacuum- only NASA and aliens are capable 😀

  100. Javier lopez alegria says:

    If you need to perform this test is because you are not analizing the phenomena from a microscopic pointo of view, atoms of gas (ie particles) expand in all directions, these particles are like balls launched against a wall, the expansion causes a change in the speed of these particles..so it doesn´t matter if there is gas or not, you just launch a ball against something that causes a reaction. No more discussion about these please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *