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.

 

Why not fly to the moon and back in 1944 with an (air)plane?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Why not fly to the moon and back in 1944 with an customized plane? That is a question that came to me a few days ago when I saw this (hoax) swastika on the moon. My question has not particulairy to with nazi's but just if it is possible.

I understand that it will take some tinkering with a, for example B52. The passenger would need something against the cold and enough oxigen. The enigines to be jet engines and maybe some other adjustments.

Other than the trip to be longer than the 3-4 days we are used to, isn't it do-able for a adventurous crew to undertake such a journey?

Do not bore me with a Van Allen radiation belt because we all know that this man had it all wrong.......(just assume we landed on the moon).



+4 more 
posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
A few reasons quickly come to mind:

For one thing, jet engines don't work without air. Also, They would have needed very powerful rocket engines to escape the Earth's gravity, and there were no rocket engines that powerful at the time.

Furthermore, they would have needed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere somehow -- the metal in a WWII bomber would simply burn and melt during the heat of re-entry (caused by the friction of the Earth's thick atmosphere).



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
The lack of air at high altitudes force an aircraft to somewhat stop climbing. Rockets do not need air per-se, because the lift they generate is directly from the engine. Aircraft with wings have whats called a service ceiling, the altitude at witch climbing any higher, given certain weather conditions, will not be possible because it simply can not. With that said, the higher you go in a plane, the harder it is to control also.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Re-entry would be a major problem, enough fuel, take-off into space (Earth's escape speed is 11 km/s), and the biggest problem would be landing on the moon, getting out and doing something. They didn't have spacesuits to protect them from the harshness of space.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Box of Rain
A few reasons quickly come to mind:

For one thing, jet engines don't work without air. Also, They would have needed very powerful rocket engines to escape the Earth's gravity, and there were no rocket engines that powerful at the time.

Furthermore, they would have needed to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere somehow -- the metal in a WWII bomber would simply burn and melt during the heat of re-entry (caused by the friction of the Earth's thick atmosphere).
All of these reasons and the added fact that they didn't have B-52's in 1944.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Whoa everyone, I think the OP mentioned a customised plane. Could it be the reaosn they didn't was because there was not enough money in the kitty to because of the second world war drain ?

I don't know, I am just speculating!



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
A hot air balloon trip would be more tranquil and if you have a lady/gentleman friend, a lot more romantic. Imagine the breathtaking sight of the entire earth beneath your feet, slowly shrinking into the distance without the claustrophobic feeling of cockpit windows. Absorb the sights without all the encumberances of attending to complex machinery.

The moon, a wonderous place where the people are friendly, the beaches go on forever and drinks are free for anyone staying more than a week.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Whoa everyone, I think the OP mentioned a customised plane. Could it be the reaosn they didn't was because there was not enough money in the kitty to because of the second world war drain ?

I don't know, I am just speculating!


A plane that is customized to the point of changing its type of propulsion (to rockets)

...and making it light enough and carry enough fuel to be able to reach escape velocity...

...and change the skin on it so it could survive the heat of re-entry...

is no longer a plane.

A plane is too large and has too much mass, even by today's standards, to propel through space using the limited fuel and thrust capabilities of our rocket engines (i.e., it would be too massive).

They would be better off building it from scratch, a design which would involve the need to push only a small capsule to escape velocity toward the Moon --
-- which they did 24 years after WWII.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Whoa everyone, I think the OP mentioned a customised plane. Could it be the reaosn they didn't was because there was not enough money in the kitty to because of the second world war drain ?

I don't know, I am just speculating!


It's a wonderful and fantastical notion to think we could have achieved it with the cutting edge technology of the day but all evidence points to 'no', we could not have achieved it.

Makes a great story though, don't you think!

IRM



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


If the moon were made of cheese would you eat it?

I know I would.. and I'd wash it down with a tall, cool, Budweiser.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


If the moon were made of cheese would you eat it?

I know I would.. and I'd wash it down with a tall, cool, Budweiser.


It might be our only chance of survival when TSHTF. Food may be scarce here and we can't let that go to waste. By now it should be well and delectably aged to perfection. I believe the Benedictine monks put it there in the middle ages originally as a snack for those hungry, raptured souls in the end times.

To answer your question: Yes! Right now I'm titillated.

[edit on 1/18/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


If the moon were made of cheese would you eat it?

I know I would.. and I'd wash it down with a tall, cool, Budweiser.
How bout if it were made of barbecue spare ribs, would you eat it then?

Would you eat the moon if it were made of spare ribs? Its not rocket science, here, just say yes and we'll move on.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
So far, most seem to have a rocket with super sonic speed in mind. But I still haven't seen some real reasons for why not.

Ofcourse you need spacesuits when you get out for a stroll on the Moon.

Burn up with re-entry?.....the plane isn't not going 25.000 miles per hour.

Can not escape gravity?....that's were the jets (or rockets) are for and I wasn't planning to orbit the Earth and not need a speed of 25.000 miles per hour.

What does it matter if my airplane still has its wings fixed...all I need is a home in space to get there...why not take a plane and use the wings for as long you can use them to escape the Earth and to land when you return.

Okay....it looks like a plane and isn't a B52 but a B42 or whatever B they had in those days.....no propellers, because there is no air in space....just think about what I am trying to ask here...okay?

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 18-1-2010 by zatara]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


One reason is that most 1944-era planes would come apart above 660 mph. Re-entry speed for the Apollo capsule was over 11,000 miles per hour.

In order to escape the Earth's gravity the vehicle must be traveling at 12,900 mph or faster.

Also, jet engines need oxygen. There is no oxygen in space.

Also the lack of pressurization would cause the pilot's blood to boil and his eyes to explode within seconds of entering space.

A better choice in 1944 would perhaps be a hopped-up V-2 rocket.

[edit on 1/18/10 by emsed1]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The B-47 came out a couple years after WWII:




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Feed the jet engines with oxigen or put rocket boosters on the wings.......
Make a pressurezed hull.

The thing is to use a plane that can fly in space with a crew. And the whole contraption flies below the speed of sound. Maybe this will clarify my question a bit.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


If you fly below the speed of sound you can't escape the earth's gravity.

Escape Velocity

I do understand what you are saying, though. Why can't a plane just fly a few hundred miles an hour and keep going.

It's like jumping. No matter how hard you jump you fall back to earth. In order to not fall back you would have to jump at 25,000 miles an hour.

Even the space shuttle doesn't travel fast enough to get away from the earth and it has massive fuel tanks and 3 million pounds of thrust (compared to a few hundred in the Nazi jets of WWII).

The plane would simply run out of fuel and fall back to earth.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


You really need to learn about aviation.

Your suggestions brings up even more problem than the ones it solves.

So yeah, you put a tube aiming to the engines to feed them oxygen (like that was even possible). So now, besides the MASSIVE fuel load that you have to carry, you also have to carry a MASSIVE oxygen load, JUST to keep the engines working.

*edited* plus, aircrafts can't move in space. They use air displacement to maneuver inside the atmosphere. Even planes like U-2 spyplane use air (although very little amounts of it) to maneuver in high altitudes.

In space, an aircraft would simply drift away.

Listen, with all due respect, the idea of a aircraft travelling to the Moon is very simplistic and primitive. The same kind of ideas that people would have had in those days.

And nobody did it that way. They found out that rockets is the best way to do it.

An aircraft, especially the ones that existed in those days, are incapable of doing such a trip. Even more advanced aircrafts like the SR-71 isn't capable of leaving Earth's atmosphere.

[edit on 18/1/10 by Tifozi]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by zatara
 


If you fly below the speed of sound you can't escape the earth's gravity.

Escape Velocity

I do understand what you are saying, though. Why can't a plane just fly a few hundred miles an hour and keep going.

It's like jumping. No matter how hard you jump you fall back to earth. In order to not fall back you would have to jump at 25,000 miles an hour.

Even the space shuttle doesn't travel fast enough to get away from the earth and it has massive fuel tanks and 3 million pounds of thrust (compared to a few hundred in the Nazi jets of WWII).

The plane would simply run out of fuel and fall back to earth.


Wrong, everybody quotes escape velocity without actually knowing what it is.

Any vehicle rising at 1m/s would eventually get to the moon (fuel and moon orientation permitting). The "escape velocity" has naff all to do with it.

Escape velocity is how fast an object has to be moving FROM THE START NB VELOCITY FROM THE START NOT CONSTANT ACCELERATION!! There is no addition force involved in an initail constant velocity save that that got the object up to that velocity.....then you switch the engines off!

If you keep the engine on on a vehicle moving away from the earth you are imparting a force. That force working against gravity could result in a velocity of 1m/s and thus eventually get you to the moon! NB as you get further away from the earth that constant force will cause you to move faster due to the lower gravity you are "pushing against".

Put it this way escape velocity applies to a ball hit by a bat not a vehicle with an engine.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 


That's what I mean.....your're my man.....now we are getting somewhere.

My question is not so very simple to answer or maybe it is very simple to answer. But I know we are not there yet.

And as for not able to steer the plane in space.....it would be a good idea to use those little rockets...you know...the ones they use on the space-shuttle. But these things are not what my question is about and of no importance in this matter. Just let us concentrate on the main question.

Why do people stare at escape velocities and mega fuel tanks? Let us not forget that these huge velocities (huge fuel tanks) used for the space shuttle are needed to keep it in orbit and that is not what I want with my plane. I want to go there with let's say......200 miles per hour. Do not worry about slowing down !!

And ofcourse that the Apollo 11 only had these enormes tanks for the acceleration to a high speed. It was a small tank that brought them close to the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join