-13

Discussion:

I have removed the parts of the question regarding landing and the conic nozzle. Adding in those issues makes the question too broad.

No, it makes the question meaningful. It's an essential part of the question, without it the question feels appart.

What you see as different unrelated (or loosely related) questions are the elements of my inability to even understand what is being described.

If the question is too broad than it essentially means that the idea of asking about a "complete rocket" that is the constant mass rocket with its exhaust (closed system) and its interactions (with the outside) is impossible.

And with an open system it isn't even clear what "rocket" and "external world" is at any instant which is the crux of the matter.

In that case, rewording the question and splitting it means missing the whole point.

And please assume good faith!


Revised question: Please address all answers and votes to this revised version of the question.

A rocket taking off on a launch pad sends a dense plume that pushes on the launch pad and is being redirected sideways.

  1. What (if anything) does the rocket push on?
  2. What (if anything) pushes back on the rocket?
  3. Does the exhaust plume pushing on the pad also push on the rocket? If so, at what distance is this effective?
  4. Does the air which is hit by the exhaust plume also push on the rocket?

I have removed the parts of the question regarding landing and the conic nozzle. Adding in those issues makes the question too broad. If this revised version is well-received, then the landing and the conic nozzle issues may be asked as their own new questions.


Original question: This was the original wording of the question, retained so you can compare to the revised version above. It was revised to the version above because the version below was severely downvoted.

It is usually said that rockets don't push back on anything, ever. They don't push back on air and so they work the same in deep space as at sea level.

I find the claim utterly ridiculous: rockets at least in some cases do push back. A rocket on a launch pad is seen sending a dense plume that's being redirected side way; the plume pushes back on the launch pad; the rocket must be pushing back on the pad through it. There is no way this isn't the case at all in any situation, or you could start a rocket as close to the ground as you want, even fully on the ground, an obvious absurdity.

So the questions are:

  • During take off and landing of a rocket engine, at what altitude does the rocket "feel" the land underneath? Notably during LEM landing, at what distance would the land slow down the decent?
  • Is atmosphere "felt" by rocket engines?

Maybe the answers is almost never; I still can't understand why people wave away the issue and say there is no pushing back.

The questions are really just one question: is the plume from the rocket a support on which the rocket stands, and at some distance from the ground? How does the fluid transfer forces? (So that's two linked questions actually.)

CLARIFICATIONS

  1. This is a theoretical question so I want to know whether a physical effects not just whether a practically significant effect exists that needs to be taken care of by engineers.

  2. The claim of "no push back, we are only sending tiny objects downward" seems to directly imply that the conic nozzle plays exactly no role and is dead weight.

curiousguy
  • 93
  • 5
  • 2
    Yes the atmosphere is felt by rocket engines. They work even better in a vaccuum. The pressure difference between combustion chamber to the vaccuum is bigger and the exhaust velocity is therefore a bit higher. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 20:17
  • @Uwe My point here is that there isn't a vacuum there anymore: there was one then the engine was turned on. – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 20:25
  • Space is so huge, if there was a vacuum before the engine was turned on it will be there after ignition too. You can't fill such a huge space with so little exhaust. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 20:35
  • @Uwe Space is huge but the space just below the rocket isn't. When the rocket is on, I want to understand what happens there: is it like pushing water with a paddle? Does the exhaust push on itself? – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 20:37
  • Space is extreamly huge and the space just below the rocket is still huge. The exhaust is not a perfect parallel beam, it does expand. The exhaust gas is moving away from the rocket very fast, it does not concentrate below the nozzle. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 20:44
  • @OrganicMarble Why wouldn't force be transmitted, like with paddling in water? If force isn't transmitted, what's the point of a conic nozzle? Why not a small hole like a fire fighting hose? – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:11
  • Military aircrafts do fire air-to-air missiles on other enemy aircrafts. There is only air behind these rocket missles. The missiles are much faster than the aircrafts. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 21:36
  • @OrganicMarble "No propagation up" would mean the conic nozzle is useless, except for the push back effect. – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:38
  • @OrganicMarble I have to be wrong on which specific claim? Pls provide quote. – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:43
  • 1
    @curiousguy In addition to asking a valid question, you've used this post to push your own viewpoint (starting with "I find the claim utterly ridiculous...") and this is probably the source of the down votes, to which I'm adding mine. Stack Exchange is not the right place for this argumentative style. If you can stick to the question and answer format, then enjoy it. If not, then your posts will continue to be down voted. – uhoh Jul 21 '19 at 06:15
  • 1
    @curiousguy: Welcome to Space! I have edited your question to address some of the criticism it has received. Let's see if this new version is well-received. If you think I have misrepresented your question, please let me know and we can adjust the question. – DrSheldon Jul 21 '19 at 14:51
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic - it appears the op is either trolling, or actively avoiding all the guidance from others – Rory Alsop Jul 21 '19 at 21:49
  • @curiousguy Plate blocking exhaust? During rocket launch? Can you please provide me an image of this. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 00:32
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – called2voyage Jul 22 '19 at 12:30
  • Do you understand how a rocket works? I am not joking. Do a google search of "How does a rocket work". That will answer your question. @curiousguy – Starship - On Strike May 08 '22 at 10:55

4 Answers4

11

Newton's Third Law states that if

  • object A pushes on object B with a certain amount and direction of force

then

  • object B pushes on object A with same amount and opposite direction of force.

Notice how the two bulleted clauses are nearly the same, except A and B have swapped roles, and the direction is reversed?


In a rocket, object A is the rocket and object B is the propellant. So we have the action

  • The rocket pushes down on the propellant.

Specifically, this is done by the walls of the combustion chamber (part of the rocket) pushing down on the propellant, which comes out of the rocket as exhaust. If the rocket didn't push down on the propellant, by the First Law, the propellant would stay at rest!

The reaction to this is that

  • The propellant pushes up on the rocket.

So something (the propellant) is pushing on the rocket. The amount of this force is the same as the force of the rocket on the propellant. However, the direction is the opposite (up instead of down). So the rocket moves upward.


Newton's Third Law always involves two objects, never one or three. In this case, the two objects are the rocket and the propellant.

You can't do it with just the rocket, without the propellant. That would be just one object. A rocket without propellant won't accelerate.

There is no third object involved. The air or the ground or the launch pad do not help to move the rocket. Furthermore, rockets work just fine in space, far from the ground or the air.

So rockets do push back on matter, but it is their propellants, not the air or something else.


Addition: Another important concept to understanding the Third Law is that the forces are "equal and opposite" at exactly the same time. The amount of force between two objects can and often does change with time. However, forces do not remember what the other object did in the past, nor predict what the other object will do in the future. They only care about what happens at the same time.

Consider throwing a ball. The action is

  • your hand pushes on the ball

which accelerates the ball. The reaction is

  • the ball pushes back on your hand

which you can feel. These forces happen while the ball is in contact with your hand. Once the ball leaves contact with your hand, these forces cease to exist; your hand no longer accelerates the ball, and you no longer feel the ball pressing against your hand.

Now, throw two balls exactly the same way, but one hits a wall and the other does not. Did the ball that eventually hits the wall feel harder when you threw it? No, it did not push harder when you threw it. That's because the amount of the force right now doesn't care what happens to the objects in the future.

A rocket pushes on the propellant because they are in contact with each other in the combustion chamber. However, once a mass of propellant leaves as exhaust, the rocket and the exhausted propellant are no longer in contact with each other, and the force between them is now zero. (This why you need to continually push out more propellant if you want the thrust to continue.) Whatever happens to this exhausted propellant doesn't affect the force on the rocket, just like the ball hitting the wall doesn't affect the force on your hand.

DrSheldon
  • 47,946
  • 12
  • 162
  • 329
  • " A rocket without propellant won't accelerate." - aren't those just jet engines? They work just fine as long as they have the air to push against. – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 11:09
  • @JohnDvorak has the same misconception as the OP. Jets don't work by pushing against the air. They need air only as in input, to provide oxygen to burn the fuel and to provide reaction mass in the exhaust. – Ray Butterworth Jul 21 '19 at 12:53
  • @RayButterworth excuse me, but what does it do to the reaction mass that it shoves through itself, if it can't be called "push against", specifically by combustion chamber inner walls? It doesn't matter where the pushing happens, but if there's a force exerted against the air that moves it backwards in the engine's frame of reference, I call it pushing. – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 13:25
  • @RayButterworth ... and if you don't count combustion as a form of pushing, there are still propeller engines. Sometimes driven by electromotors, so no combustion at all. – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 13:30
  • ... or are you saying that the air can legitimately called a propellant if it's being propelled (pushed against) by the propeller? In that case, where's the misconception? – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 13:32
  • @JohnDvorak: It's important to distinguish between two masses of air. There is the mass of air that is accelerated by the engine: the engine pushes on this air, and this air pushes back on the engine. The other mass is the air behind the engine: the engine does not push on this air, nor does this air push back on the engine. – DrSheldon Jul 21 '19 at 13:34
  • @DrSheldon good distinction. I would still expect some effect though, even if it's negligible and more than countered by the air that's in front of the engine (and not used as a propellant). At the very least, air density affects the optimal nozzle shape to best redirect the propellant in just one direction (so "doesn't interact" isn't exactly true even if the ambient air doesn't act as extra reaction mass) – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 13:42
  • ... then there's the Dyson fan, which might hypothetically be used as an aircraft propeller that uses surrounding air as a propellant even though it doesn't pass through the engine. Not that it's anywhere near practical, of course. – John Dvorak Jul 21 '19 at 13:46
  • I'm OK with the ball thing. The separation of the ball from the launcher is well defined. The separation instant of a mass of exhaust from a rocket, no so much; so next Q might be be "rocket nozzles are useless; prove me wrong". – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 01:06
  • @curiousguy How are rocket nozzles useless, they expand and accelerate the exhaust coming out of the rocket. Here's an example. Get two people, and each one of you pick up a really heavy book from a corner with one finger. Hard isn't it? Now instead, use your palms. Notice how much easier it is? That's what a nozzle does. It lowers the pressure coming out of the rocket and expands and accelerates the exhaust meaning more thrust. Thrust depends on mass flow rate of engine, pressure of exhaust and exit velocity of exhaust. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 15:00
  • @StarMan How must lifting (push back) is applied by the exhaust to the bell? Is it a great part of the power of the rocket? – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 15:05
  • @curiousguy Yes. It helps with the power of the rocket. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 16:33
  • Oustanding answer to a horrible question. Good job! – Starship - On Strike May 22 '22 at 10:31
4

I think the principle you are thinking of is "ground effect".

When plane wings are very close to the ground, the deflected air is compressed slightly between the wing and the runway, thereby generating extra lift. For other reasons, it also reduces drag.

Planes fly parallel and close to the runway for several seconds and the ground effect can be significant, aiding in landings and takeoffs.

Something similar might happen when a rocket is close to the ground, but:

  • The time involved will be very short, since the rocket is moving away from the ground, not flying parallel to it.
  • Rockets don't have airfoils or other surfaces for the slightly increased pressure to press against.

So, even if there is some ground effect between the rocket and the ground, the amount of extra lift generated would be insignificant and would last for an insignificant amount of time.

Ray Butterworth
  • 355
  • 1
  • 3
  • 12
  • A flame trench at launch pad would inhibit any ground effect. – Uwe Jul 21 '19 at 09:10
  • 1
    @Uwe any? 100% is eliminated? That seems somewhat unlikely – Tim Jul 21 '19 at 09:26
  • "moving away from the ground" I mentioned Apollo landing (SpaceX reusable rockets comes to mind too) as they are decelerating to the ground. I wanted to know if the rocket engine itself could serve as a ground proximity detector. – curiousguy Jul 21 '19 at 16:09
  • 1
    @curiosguy When a rocket is close to the ground, the exhaust deflects off the ground and hits the side of the nozzle, the rocket, and etc. This does create a little amount of force however the main concern is actually the heat of the exhaust damaging the rocket. This was why the Apollo LEM had probes on 3 of 4 of the legs. To tell the crew that "you guys are close to the ground, stop the engines". The last few seconds of the LEM descent was in free fall. – Star Man Jul 21 '19 at 19:00
  • @curiousguy I've noticed that you are asking many different questions Please stick to a few questions per post. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 00:37
  • @StarMan The question is "what happens in the exhaust". How are forces transferred and what pushed against what. The plate is a device to get ppl to admit that the simple mantra "stuff is ejected and we don't care what happens after that" is vague, incorrect and even meaningless. – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 01:00
  • @curiousguy It's true. We don't care about the exhaust when the rocket is high in altitude. We care about the exhaust only when it's close to the ground (but for a different reason than you think). We don't care about it because it applies a little force after the exhaust is deflected off the ground, we only care about it because of the intense heat that is deflected off the ground which can damage the rocket. See my Apollo LEM probe example in my comment above. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 01:04
3

Rocket engines don't "push back" on anything. Rocket engines are basically controlled explosions. To find the answer of your question, we first need to know how a rocket engine works.

Rocket engines rely on Newton's third law of motion. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

enter image description here

In the image above, liquid fuel and oxidiser come into contact with each other and is converted into thermal energy (hot gas). Now the gas has to escape somewhere, otherwise the combustion chamber will blow up. That's what the throat is, gas escapes the combustion chamber and goes into the nozzle where the energy is released and is then converted into kinetic energy. Works similar to a balloon when you accidentally let go of the balloon when you are blowing it for a birthday party. The direction of force is going out of the nozzle and according to Newton's third law, the reaction is the rocket going up. This is a very simple explanation of how a rocket works and as you can see, it doesn't "push back" on anything.

In your question when you said:

the plume pushes back on the launch pad; the rocket must be pushing back on the pad through it

I'm assuming you were looking at a space shuttle launch but not all rockets have a dense plume like the space shuttle.

enter image description here

Space Shuttle Atlantis

enter image description here

Falcon 9

What i'm trying to imply is that the plume is simply the exhaust and while it does apply force to the launchpad (at launch), it doesn't affect the rocket. A rocket can launch mid-air (such as upper stages of a rocket) even though it doesn't "push back" on anything. If rockets had to push back on something, then rockets won't work in a vacuum as there's nothing there. Rocket exhaust only pushes on the rocket when it's very close to the ground because the exhaust "reflects" off the ground but most of it is dispersed sideways (this is visible in almost every rocket launch), but even then, it's a very tiny amount (so tiny that it's basically not there). When the rocket's high in altitude, then no, the rocket does not "push back" like you stated in your question.

Star Man
  • 5,918
  • 1
  • 20
  • 51
  • There is huge difference between "rockets don't have to push back on anything" and "rockets don't push back on anything, ever, not even slightly, not even in a way so tiny it isn't noticed". Phenomenons can exist physically which are too small to care for from an engineering standpoint, but which are still known to occur point a theorist POV (the usual "if you pee in a lake, does the level rise"). If rockets don't push back, does it mean they can be started at ground level on solid ground w/o danger for the engine itself? Also why even have a nozzle, as there is no push back on anything? – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 20:59
  • Not the same kind of fluid, but I have the same Q for a hoverboard made with fire hoses. When do water on water pushing play a role? Maybe this is best suited to a physics forum. – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:03
  • 1
    @curiousguy It is not the wrong forum if you don't like good answers. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 21:12
  • Upper stages are launched in 'mid-air' not only in theory but in praxis too. Of course stage separation may occur in very high atmosphere. – Uwe Jul 20 '19 at 21:16
  • @curiousguy, once the nozzle is started the plume is supersonic, and as pressure can only travel at the speed of sound the rocket, literally, can't feel the ground. standing the nozzle on the ground before lighting the engine is likely to be dangerous, but will cause the bell pressure to rise and prevent the nozzle from starting. at which point, the engine will be getting much less thrust, but will be able to feel the ground. –  Jul 20 '19 at 21:17
  • @Uwe For a fire hose based hoverboard, which is the nearest Q of that Q, it's the correct forum? OK then – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:18
  • 1
    @curiousguy About your question regarding water hoverboards. Water coming out of the hoverboard does not need to push on the lake in order to levitate. Your water hoverboard can even work many km above water provided you have a powerful pump that can pump the water all the way up. – Star Man Jul 20 '19 at 21:18
  • 2
    @Uwe "Upper stages are launched in 'mid-air'" Oof, I totally forgot. Thanks. I guess I should delete that part. – Star Man Jul 20 '19 at 21:19
  • @StarMan Again, "can work w/o pushing back" is specifically not the Q here. The Q is whether it does push back even slightly, even in a way that's too small to measure but that exists in theory. – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:35
  • @JCRM "standing the nozzle on the ground before lighting the engine is likely to be dangerous" So it's a startup thing? What about the mental experiment when you had a solid plate right under the nozzle in mid flight? – curiousguy Jul 20 '19 at 21:36
  • 1
    @curiousguy It depends where you are. If you are close to the ground, a tiny amount of matter exhausted from the engine will deflect off the ground and push on the rocket (most of it will be dispersed sideways). But if you are high in altitude (such as more than couple 10s of meters), then no, not even a tiny amount will push on the rocket. – Star Man Jul 20 '19 at 21:56
  • 1
  • 1
    Since rockets designed for operation in an atmosphere are different to rockets designed for operation in a vacuum (something to do with expansion), the presence of an atmosphere does have an effect on the rocket; the question is: what exactly is that effect and how big is it? – Anthony X Jul 20 '19 at 23:26
  • 1
    The diagram in your answer shows a rocket motor with a large "bell." It might help the OP to understand what is pushing on what exactly and why it is able to push on it if you could update your answer to explain the purpose of the bell.... – Solomon Slow Jul 21 '19 at 01:56
  • 1
    ...Or, maybe you'd only confuse the hell out of him. That might go too deep into real "rocket science." – Solomon Slow Jul 21 '19 at 01:58
  • @curiousguy,if you made a metal plate appear by magic,and the bell didn't split, then the pressure in the bell would rapidly rise, and the nozzle would unstart. The engine thrust would be greatly reduced as the exhaust is no longer being accelerated to the same degree. However, assuming the the engine was massively over-engineered so it did come apart at the seams, the rocket would feel the pressure of the gas against the metal plate as it fell out of the sky. –  Jul 21 '19 at 06:49
  • @JCRM Then there is a minimum safety distance where you can make plates magically appear w/o endangering the rocket. What's the order? – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 00:13
  • far enough away that the gap between the plate and the nozzle allows the exhaust plume to move sufficiently freely that the ambient pressure seen by the nozzle (which includes the inhibited exhaust) doesn't rise above the point that causes a t/w ratio of 1 or less, and remains within the structural tolerance of the engine and nozzle. It's probably on the order of the nozzle diameter, but I'd guess anything within tens of nozzle diameters would reduce performance significantly. But while the rocket would feel the loss of performance, it wouldn't feel that it was pushing on the plate. –  Jul 22 '19 at 08:44
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – called2voyage Jul 22 '19 at 12:30
  • "Rocket engines don't "push back" on anything" It seems clear in your schema that the combustion chamber does push back on gazes inside it. Anyway the whole question might be unsolvable as it isn't clear what a working rocket is, as it isn't a closed system. – curiousguy Nov 06 '19 at 03:03
  • @curiousguy This is the most simplifies version of a rocket engine: The combustion chamber is where gas "explodes" causing the force to be exerted everywhere. But the exhaust of the explosion leaves the nozzle resulting in a net force of forward. So in a way, gas "pushes" the rocket. But the rocket doesn't "push back" on anything. For example, when you're jumping, you're pushing back on the ground. – Star Man Nov 06 '19 at 03:16
  • @StarMan I'm breathing right now, something eating urinating etc. but I can stop breathing and push back on the ground to be described as a closed system. A working rocket, not so much. You have to draw a line between rocket and not the rocket. – curiousguy Nov 06 '19 at 04:52
  • @curiousguy The fact that rockets work in vacuums means that rockets don't "push back" on anything. – Star Man Nov 07 '19 at 01:03
  • @StarMan It absolutely does not mean that. – curiousguy Nov 07 '19 at 01:41
  • @curiousguy Ok then. Then what do you think rockets push back on? On the ground, on the air, what? It can't be those two because rockets work in vacuums. – Star Man Nov 08 '19 at 00:27
  • @StarMan What you wrote isn't even wrong. The whole mantra presented here is blatantly contradicting its own presentation. If the rocket stops at an arbitrary point (the plane of the bottom of the nozzle), I can make it stop at any point above, by cutting the nozzle short. And the same argument should apply, so the bottom of the nozzle is shown to be useless. It follows that anything present slightly under the nozzle pushes it back. – curiousguy Nov 08 '19 at 08:15
  • @curiousguy The nozzle is there to increase the amount of thrust. In fact, bigger nozzles produce more thrust, which can be proven using the rocket thrust equation. – Star Man Nov 09 '19 at 03:10
  • @StarMan So something has to push back on the nozzle. Nozzle efficiency proves that the simplistic fire hose analogy is incorrect (the throwing bricks one is even worse). There are interactions with the mass below the dry rocket. The problem is that a running rocket is an ill defined object has its mass is expelled, and that's an essential part of the description (unlike a coal locomotive where mass loss is irrelevant and could conceivably be avoided with a huge collector). – curiousguy Nov 09 '19 at 03:22
3

What does a rocket engine push on?

Here's a cross-section of a rocket engine:
Nozzle section

A combustion process expands gases in the combustion chamber. This exerts a pressure on the walls. This pressure is equal in all directions except at the bottom of the combustion chamber, where the gases can escape through the nozzle.

In the nozzle, again the gases push on all sides equally except at the bottom.

So just from the expansion of the gases, you get a net force pointing upward.

When do rockets push back on matter?

During their entire flight in the atmosphere. This reduces engine performance.

You can already see this from the diagram above. Any force downward (from the rocket exhaust meeting the atmosphere) reduces the net force upward.

Thrust is defined as:

F = qVe +(Pe-Pa)Ae

F = thrust force
q = the amount of mass going out
Ve = exhaust velocity
Pe = pressure at the nozzle end
Pa = ambient pressure
Ae = area of the nozzle end

Pa is the atmospheric pressure. In the equation, Pa is in a place where it reduces the resulting thrust when Pa increases.

Why do you want an expanding nozzle?

The exhaust gas flow is accelerated by a diverging passage, so you want a large nozzle diameter. The nozzle diameter is limited by ambient pressure, though, roughly because you need the pressure in the nozzle to be higher than ambient.

Pc is large, so if you want to make Pe equal to Pa, you need a nozzle opening much larger than the throat (the spot where the combustion chamber meets the nozzle).

An alternative approach: Look at an individual molecule of exhaust product. It leaves the nozzle, and travels until it hits either a gas molecule in the air, or a molecule on the solid surface. This collision produces a force. But how can this force be transmitted back to the rocket?

The only way for this force to have an effect on the rocket is if the exhaust molecule travels back up, and hits the structure of the rocket, pushing the rocket up.

But the collision can send the molecule in every direction, and most of those directions are away from the rocket. So most of the exhaust collisions with the surrounding air do not contribute to pushing the rocket up, and the net effect of the atmosphere is negative (as I said above, reducing net thrust).

a dense plume

The air pressure in the plume is not larger than that of the surrounding air. It can't be: the plume is free to mix with air and will quickly equalize its pressure.

What (if anything) pushes back on the rocket?

The surrounding air. But it does so equally in all direction, so any pressure on the bottom of the rocket is met by an equal and opposite pressure on the top of the rocket. So there's no net force.

Hobbes
  • 127,529
  • 4
  • 396
  • 565
  • I don't even think I understand what pressure is in a dynamic open case so... About the nozzle: it's represented as a closed container! What defines the interior and exterior of an open bottle? – curiousguy Jul 21 '19 at 22:13
  • 1
    The rim of the bottle defines the exterior and interior. Anything within the area of the rim is the interior, and anything outside of that area is exterior. – Star Man Jul 22 '19 at 01:06
  • "the net effect of the atmosphere is negative" So there is some effect, in direct contradiction with "the flow is so fast nothing affects anything above" claim (which I may have misinterpreted, but that is what I understood) – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 01:11
  • What happens if you cut some part of the bell? Is the exhaust still vertical? – curiousguy Jul 22 '19 at 17:07
  • Yes, it's still vertical. The nozzle has an optimum size that depends on the ambient pressure: engines that are started at sea level need smaller nozzles than an engine that's started in the upper atmosphere. More info here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10621/whats-the-nature-of-hoop-stresses-on-a-rocket-nozzle/10624#10624 – Hobbes Jul 22 '19 at 18:07