why wouldn't it work in a vacuum?

@JCRM for the same reason that any other bit of kit built for use in a temperature atmosphere wouldn't work in a vacuum?

such as? pressure fed peroxide thrusters have been used in a vacuum (I'm not saying it would work, just that the reasons for it not doing so are not obvious)

@JCRM did you read the actual sentence I wrote? Let me repeat it for you. "Obviously the RB2000 as it stands wouldn't work in a vacuum". I've emphasised a bit you may have missed. Also, in my last comment, "kit built for use in a temperature atmosphere wouldn't work in a vacuum" is really, quite clearly, not the same as using equipment designed for use in a vacuum, is it?

No, it's not clear. equipment built for use in a temperate atmosphere may or may not work in a vacuum

@JCRM I hadn't realised you were unaware of the difference between equipment designed and built to be used in a vacuum, and that which was not. Its hard to summarise all the differences in a comment thread, however. Perhaps you should spend a little time researching the issue.

If it's obvious you should be able to say why it isn't able to work. As you appear unable to say why it isn't able to work then it appears it isn't obvious

you seem to think a vacuum is somehow magic, and a device that operates in atmosphere will necessarily not operate in vacuum. So yes, someone has big problems.

I see you still can't say it why wont work. Namecalling may make you feel better, but isn't really encouraged here.

comments are places to discuss how answers can be improved. You categorically state that it will not work, but seemed reluctant to say why. of the reasons you've given lubricant is the most likely to cause issues, but without knowing what lubricant is in use it would be difficult to say whether that is a real issue. I am particularly intrigued in why you think a thruster needs to be redesigned (it would benefit from it, undoubtedly, but would work well enough)

@JCRM bro, did you just downvote me? that's hilarious.

Your answer is factually incorrect, as the RB2000 is not available. But yes, I downvoted you because anyone who resorts to namecalling to defend their answer clearly knows they are on shaky ground

Still not addressing the points, are you.

@JCRM still driven by petty fury that I'm not respecting your authoritaaaah, aren't you ;-) I mean, it'd be easy to go do that to your answers too, but happily I'm just a better person than you. Isn't that nice?

still not addressing the point

@JCRM you're just desparate for my validation, aren't you? Sorry hun, but I'm not here to service your emotional needs.

Still not addressing the point