It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Escape Velocity is not essential for....

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
How does the decrease in the overall weight of the rocket figure into the ratios of thrust and mass flow?




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
you better get to NASA with that information


yeah, it never ceases to amaze me how many psuedo-scientists we have on ATS.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soitenly
How does the decrease in the overall weight of the rocket figure into the ratios of thrust and mass flow?


I can't believe you even asked such a question.

It's simple maths....

Just because something is cutting edge does not make it pseudo science... It's the thinking outside of the box that gives us the best discoveries.

Here is space.com's article on the NASA funded anti-grav project.

Weighty Implications: NASA Funds Controversial Gravity Shield

But don't take my word for it.... do a Google for anti-grav and Boeing....

NeoN HaZe



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   


You need escape velocity or you won't escape gravity. Play Orbiter a bit, do a Google search, it's very educational.


Yes, we know that a spacecraft needs to reach escape velocity to overcome the Earth's gravitational field. However, that is NOT the same as saying that you need to reach a velocity of 11.2 kms per second (which is the escape velocity when near the Earth's surface). If you had an almost unlimited fuel supply (and the required thrust to prevent your specacraft from being pulled back by gravity), you could move away from Earth at a much lower velocity. As the distance from Earth increased, the "escape velocity" would decrease. If you had the necessary power and fuel reserves to boost yourself to the orbit of the Moon at (for example) 100kms per hour, then you would only need to increase your velocity to 1.6kms per second to escape Earth's gravity, because that is the escape velocity of Earth at that distance.



yeah, it never ceases to amaze me how many psuedo-scientists we have on ATS.


Who in this thread are you referring to ?



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Exactly. That notwithstanding, though, I recommend that everyone should try Orbiter. It's just too damn fun. Not only that, but it gives you a very good concept of how gravity and orbital mechanics work.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Here is space.com's article on the NASA funded anti-grav project.

Weighty Implications: NASA Funds Controversial Gravity Shield

But don't take my word for it.... do a Google for anti-grav and Boeing....

NeoN HaZe



ESA has already manipulated gravity - however the scale is still microscopic. I would doubt that this will be any different.

We are still a long way from producing a viable propulsion system based on electrogravimetrics.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
the nievity of the OPs " calculations " is truely mind blowing

OP , please google :

work
force
effort

in a physics context .

your entire "theory " dismisses the TIME element of the equations required

in order to maintain even a hover - you have to apply a given effort , for EVERY SECOND which you wish to hover

also the work required to gain altitude @ constant velocity is HIGHER than that required to simply hover

the operation and preformance of harrier jump jets in USMC and RAF service is a prime exaple of your erroneous "logic "

this is < no pun intended > hardly rocket science - it is basic physics

if required i can supply you with the maths - but i am busy now - and doubt you would understand it anyway .

no offence



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join