[amluto]

> The rocket equation doesn't account for thrust. It's terms are mass and ISP (or exhaust velocity).

Only sort of true. If you naively apply the rocket equation like you're imagining, you would predict a nonzero final velocity for a hypothetical rocket that has enormous ISP but thrust less than its weight. This is true if the rocket is starting out in orbit, but it's totally wrong when you're on the ground. Starting from the ground, you also have to fight gravity, so you care more about (thrust - weight) / mass.

[Maybestring]

It is absolutely true that 'the rocket equation' doesn't account for thrust. It also doesn't account for gravity gradients, aerodynamic drag, relativity, solar wind, the cosmological constant...

It's very accurate when those things contribute little, and totally inadequate for modeling spaceflight if any are significant.

There are more complex versions that account for those things, but 'the rocket equation' is always understood to mean Tsiolkovsky's equation.

[IshKebab]

Sure, but "the rocket equation" is 100% talking about the classic ideal rocket equation, which I just discovered is also called the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

If you want to be more specific, e.g. include gravity then you can't say "the rocket equation".

[robotrout]

    > If you want to be more specific, e.g. include gravity 
    > then you can't say "the rocket equation".

You may not be able to say "the rocket equation" in that context, but NASA does. [1]

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/exped...

[Maybestring]

Despite Don mentioning gravity along with deltaV he is obviously attempting to describe the classic rocket equation without scaring people away with the math.