I don't think most people appreciate how different the "rules of the game" are, when there's NO AIR.

Absolutely.  When man allegedly first went to the moon, they should have had absolutely no idea how their propulsion systems would function in the vacuum of space.

Heck, they couldn't get the Lunar Module stable even when testing on the earth, and they had absolutely no chance to practice on how it would react in vacuum and low "gravity" on the moon.

  

Where did you all study vacuum rocket science?

Jet propulsion simply works based on conservation of momentum. Think of a gun and recoil.

It's very basic mechanics.

Yea, so basic that the necessary means of explosion to propel the bullet or rocket is impossible in a vacuum.  You don't have recoil without the explosion.  

The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.

That cannot burn without oxygen. 

This is a bit longer and more in depth:

30min 6sec


That channel has lots of good vids on FE

Thanks, I'll check them out

Oxidant and fuel will not burn without oxygen because they are inhibited by lack of oxygen.  I don't have a problem, lack of enough oxygen is the problem for burning.

Here some info:  Oxidant Definition in Chemistry.

Oxygen is one oxidant. Other's can be used and are used with jet propulsion in vaccuum environment. There's a list of examples of oxidants on that page.

NASA's been a part of the development of "scientific materialist" control. It goes back in some sense to the Bank of England and Newton, etc. The "ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic" conspiracy. Kant and modern philosophy, for example, are all heliocentric like the Syfy Channel.

I accept low Earth orbit. It seems to me they were able to accomplish a little low Earth orbit with Apollo. There's footage of them trick filming the Earth from high altitude and manipulating the setting of the window view to make it seem like they were 130,000 miles out in space, or about halfway to the Moon, when they were maybe 100 to 200 miles up. 

They're full of tricks and tricks and tricks. Since you can't trust them about the Moon, you can't really trust them about LEO either.

Space itself is created, besides the objects in it, but modern philosophy wants space to be infinite. One way to reckon this is that there is no contact among numbers only succession. 2 does not cause 4 or another number and every number is discreet. Numbers by themselves don't cause other numbers, and the way to get numbers from numbers is from the operations involved which represent the power of cause and effect.

Space is extensive which is also numeric. The extensive nature of space is from operation of cause and effect which can't go on forever or to infinity. Therefore, it's finite, like the operations and numbers themselves. Infinity doesn't fit in mathematical operations or space, but they want it to so they are crazy with heliocentrism or acentric cosmology. NASA is a part of the big confusion.

The surrounding is vaccuum. The rocket carries the oxidant and fuel.

I understand that. Getting fuel to burn in a theoretical vacuum of space is one thing. Having it propel a vessel forward in a vast vacuum environment is another.

It's hard to say what happens in a vacuum as large or perfect as "outer space" since it's only theoretical. I can't trust NASA's word for what's "up there" in the sky. They lie too much. They say we came from monkeys, created by random chance for crying out loud. They're full of it up to their neck.

So you're completely on-board that NASA lies through their teeth. Why are you so averse to the idea they're lying about the shape of the earth as well?

Because we're not talking about NASA lying through their teeth, but rather about our Catholic western civilisation lying through our teeth. The earth was a globe even before protestants and enlightenment, masons etc. came up. And: I am an engineer, and I verified that the earth isn't flat, as reported on CI.

I know of two ideas, why FE BS is used to fool you and others. One is: Sungenis messed with Krauss, Epstein et al.

"Conspiracy theorist" atheists on the other hand (e.g. cluesforum.info) say it's to destroy NASA critics. Critics of NASA are labelled flat earthers, to ridicule them and make them innocuous. I can only guess what's the case, and my guess is: One of both alternatives, or both are true.

There hasn't been a flat earther on CI before 2015. And you had "banned" them into a "ghetto". That was wise, IMHO.

You also quickly answered the question about the age of the earth -- with the correct Catholic answer I should note.
Meanwhile, Stanley N, Dankward (et alia) have NOT yet answered said question.

You banned Stanley N, but Dankward still may answer your question.