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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 



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!


Yeah yeah... But you can't.

Jet engines can't keep that constant rising. Look at the case of the U-2 for instance. The engine was made so it could work in very low oxygen levels. But it needed oxygen. If he could drift away from the Earth's atmosphere, he wouldn't have any way of making his travel to the Moon.

The modifications needed to make it happen are so complicated and costly, that it makes NO SENSE even trying it.

The best way is to make a missile (which is almost the concept, if you look into apollo's rocket) that shots you to the moon, and then use a system that can take off from the moon and get you back to the vehicle that makes the entry again.

To make that entry, you need a heavy craft, because it has a lot of heat armor.

A heavy craft, will need even BIGGER wings than the ones of the U-2 (picture: aether.lbl.gov... ) so it can hold up flying in low density air..

futhermore, a heavy aircraft, even heavier because of the HUGE wings, will need even a more POWERFULL and more EFFICIENT engine than the one used in the U-2.

Can you imagine what would this aircraft look like, in numbers, and in visual? It would be a beast, and it would need to use technology only available around the 70's.

reply to post by zatara
 


Apollo used a missile (I like to use this analogy) because they could only fire it once. They needed to scape Earth, and after you start those engines, they only shut down when they have no more fuel to burn.

An aircraft wouldn't be able to take such a payload (fuel, crew, gear, etc) to extreme altitude, and be capable of getting away from Earth.

Not to mention the entry.

[edit on 18/1/10 by Tifozi]




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


This thread is a joke, made me laugh a bit actually!


fly to the moon


Hmm, how would a plane get enough momentum to escape earth's gravity for a start, and how would it burn fuel without oxygen in space?



fly back


Same difficulties and pointless to even discuss it!



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



A hot air balloon trip would be more tranquil and if you have a lady/gentleman friend, a lot more romantic.


It would, but you'd never escape the earth's gravity in a balloon, you need an upward thrust of several thousand km/hr



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by zatara
 


This thread is a joke, made me laugh a bit actually!


fly to the moon


Hmm, how would a plane get enough momentum to escape earth's gravity for a start, and how would it burn fuel without oxygen in space?



fly back


Same difficulties and pointless to even discuss it!


Listen.....I am not a physicist...(just managed to write that word)...but if you read the previous comments than you would know that you shouldn't worry to much about oxygen for the jets or rockets or what ever used for getting up to speed.

How does an airplane escapes earths gravity....and yet it can fly around the world with all the air friction which isn't present in space.

And yes....my question is almost a joke....so much a joke it can make you cry if you (I mean I) give it just a little more thought.

If I read the other comments I understand that it is possible if I have enough fuel to reach the point in space where beyond the gravity of the Moon will take over.

From that point on I must brake if I want to prevent myself from crashing on the Moon due to the gravity of the Moon.

But because I will need so very much fuel to reach that point in space it is no do-able. It is all a matter of having a lot of energy in a small package will I ever be able to fly with 200 miles per hour to the moon.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Of course, the biggest conspiracy of all is that there actually is air in space and that ufos are really just paper machet crafts.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
This is a link to an excellent definition of flight: www.answers.com...

The forces acting on an airfoil (the shape of the cross section of the wings) moving through the air depend upon the flow pattern around it. Because of the asymmetric profile on an airfoil, the air flowing over the upper surface travels farther and flows faster than air passing underneath. According to Bernoulli's principle, pressure falls when speed rises in a moving fluid, resulting in a pressure difference between the upper and lower sides of the airfoil (illus. a). This pressure difference has to disappear gradually toward the wingtips, and some air will flow upward around the wingtips. The air moves downward behind the wing as trailing vortices (illus. b), and the reaction of this momentum flow is experienced by the wing as lift. The stronger the vortex, the greater the lift generated, but with some energy loss to drag. The lift force is responsible for weight support (its vertical component) and thrust or drag (its horizontal component).

I read somewhere the pilot of the space shuttle described the nature of flying the shuttle to be like "flying a brick", which is understandable when looking at the size of the fuselage compared to the wings.

It is good speculation to question the reasons why we were not able to travel into low earth orbit until we developed the rocket engine and farther as technology developed.

Also, since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the landing would have to be a vertical controlled rocket engine burn, not a glide down to the moon's surface.

When in space the shuttle has to use reaction control systems(rcs) due to the lack of atmosphere which is needed to cause lift over(or under) the wings to maneuver. The rcs simply allows for pitch, roll and yaw in space to orient the orbiter.

With all of these characteristics I don't know if it is true to follow the old crooners song "fly me to the moon" it is more acceptable to say "shoot me at the moon with the correct trajectory and equations to make sure I don't smash into the surface or fly off into deep outer-space and die a horrible death.."

Good question though..



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The Me-163 Komet came pretty close to achieving supersonic flight, and might have accidentally done so during some high-speed dives. But that's pretty far from escape velocity.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Indeed. The V-2 could reach an altitude of 128 miles. The Saturn-5 was basically a hopped-up V-2, scaled to the limits of the then-modern technology (co-designed by the Nazi Werner von Braun himself).



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara...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...


The space shuttle does NOT need huge fuel tanks to stay in orbit. It only uses the huge fuel tank to GET to orbit. Apollo 11 did only need a relatively small amount of fuel to get it to the Moon once in space, but it needed a huge amount of fuel to get into space in the first place.

Getting off the the Earth takes a lot of fuel. More than a plane could carry.

Considering the ratio of the weight of the plane to the amount of fuel needed to launch that weight off of the planet, you would be better off building an entire rocket from scratch rather than trying to re-use the fuselage of a plane.

That's the only part that would be "reused" in your modified plane/spacecraft -- the fuselage. What would be the advantage in reusing it?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Saturn V schematic..


F-1 engine(the Saturn V had five)



V-2 rocket schematic..


The Saturn V was not just a hopped up version of the V-2, it is very different and much more advanced. But, it was developed by Von Braun the scientist behind the German rocket program.

Edit: Added the engine schematic
[edit on 18-1-2010 by Dookie Master]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Dookie Master]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dookie Master
 


It drew directly from the research, and is the logical progression of the V-2 rocket. Of course it's not a scaled-up V-2, but the provenance is there.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Not every plane. The Skylon, by Reaction Engines, is a plane that could travel to space in one stage, carrying all the fuel it needs. It's not been built yet (obviously), but doesn't require any insane new materials to be discovered before it can be built. It's a genius design - bringing only a small amount of oxygen with it, and using the atmosphere to provide oxygen where possible, and to not fight the atmosphere by punching through it (as the shuttle does), but to use wings to provide lift. Quite ingenious. Obviously it's not in the same league as the OP's perceived space bomber



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The closest you're going to get is the SpaceShipOne that won the X-prize contest in 2004.




Read about it here: en.wikipedia.org...


During its test programme, SpaceShipOne set a number of important "firsts", including first privately funded aircraft to exceed Mach 2 and Mach 3, first privately funded manned spacecraft to exceed 100km altitude, and first privately funded reusable manned spacecraft.

SpaceShipOne is an experimental air-launched rocket-powered aircraft with suborbital flight capability that uses a hybrid rocket motor. The design features a unique "feathering" atmospheric reentry system where the rear half of the wing and the twin tail booms folded upward along a hinge running the length of the wing; this increased drag while remaining stable. The achievements of SpaceShipOne are more comparable to the X-15 than orbiting spacecraft like the Space Shuttle. Accelerating a spacecraft to orbital speed requires more than 60 times as much energy as lifting it to 100 km.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
I want to go there with let's say......200 miles per hour. Do not worry about slowing down


So to fly to the moon at 200mph would only take you over 3 years, then 3 years back so you had better pack enough food, water and oxygen etc etc. for 6+ years.... Also you had better pack a good book!



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



A hot air balloon trip would be more tranquil and if you have a lady/gentleman friend, a lot more romantic.


It would, but you'd never escape the earth's gravity in a balloon, you need an upward thrust of several thousand km/hr


For one thrust is measured in Newtons or other force units, not km/hr. All this escape velocity talk is referring to freefall (unpowered) escape velocity, such as throwing a ball fast enough at the surface to escape. If you could power a craft long enough to have uninterrupted thrust, you could escape the gravitational pull at say, 5 km/hr, an inch per day or whatever.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by seattletruth
 


That's exactly what he needs!

For everyone talking about massive rockets and heat shields for re-entry think about this; SpaceShipOne was made of light weight carbon fiber material, was lifted to high altitude on piggyback, used one light rocket to break free of gravity, and had no trouble floating back to Earth with "customized" wing design. It was designed and built by a small airplane manufacturer! SpaceShipOne has more similarities of a single engine plane than a NASA Shuttle.

The guy is thinking in the right direction, so was Burt Rutan and look what that achieved!

Privatized space flight is now a reality thanks to forward thinkers.

Image Link


jra

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitybender
For everyone talking about massive rockets and heat shields for re-entry think about this; SpaceShipOne was made of light weight carbon fiber material, was lifted to high altitude on piggyback, used one light rocket to break free of gravity, and had no trouble floating back to Earth with "customized" wing design.


What do you mean by "break free of gravity"? And SS1 never went into orbit, nor could it. The same for upcoming SS2. It's suborbital only. It doesn't go high enough or fast enough to require a heat shield like the shuttle or any space capsule.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 


Sure. Lets compare technology of the 40's with technology from a billionare in modern days...

People keep missing the fact that we are talking about the 40's.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 

As jra said, neither Spaceship One nor Spaceship Two are capable of reaching orbit.


Originally posted by gravitybender
...SpaceShipOne was made of light weight carbon fiber material, was lifted to high altitude on piggyback, used one light rocket to break free of gravity...

Even if Spaceship One did reach orbit, it would NOT have "broken free of gravity'.

People seem confused as to what an "orbit" means. Things in Earth Orbit are not "free" of the Earth's gravity. Quite the opposite is true -- the Earth's gravity is what defines an orbit.

The Space shuttle and Space Station (ISS) are never free of gravity. In fact, over 99% of the Earth's gravity is still acting on those spacecraft when in orbit. The space station is constantly falling back to the Earth -- being pulled down by gravity. The only reason why it doesn't hit the ground is because its "sideways" velocity of 17,000 MPH moves it past the curvature of the Earth -- i.e., the ground curves back under the spherical Earth before the ISS has a chance to hit it. THAT's what an orbit is.

Orbit -- Newton's Cannonball

People in orbit are not weightless because there is no gravity acting upon them; they are weightless becuase they and the spacecraft around them are all falling at the same speed.

It's like being in an elevator whose cable just snapped and is falling to the bottom of the shaft. Any passenger in that elevator would be weightless and probably float above the floor of the elevator car -- HOWEVER, I doubt you would say that they were free of gravity.



[edit on 1/19/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I'll post an image of Newton's cannonball - since nobody clicks links anymore (it is quite rare):




*If this was 1940s technology, wouldn't it be more fun to pretend the war didn't end and then use a modified hybrid German/Japanese aluminum midget sub as our spacecraft, one outfitted with parasols to shield it from the sun and gold foil to protect from the radiation; it'd be as safe as Apollo in that regards....

It could be manned with Japanese astronauts from the Kamikaze Corps (?) and launched after being broken down into modules to be reassembled orbit. The parts/modules would be launched using modified German A9 rockets, where it would later be assembled by another team of suicide astronauts (For the Glory of the Emperor).

Eventually they could get a few fellas up there and then using booster modules brought up in a separate launch, they could be pushed towards the moon. Once there they would crash-land using retrorockets and survive long enough to send a short transmission programing the Glory of the Emperor, the Thousand Year Reich, their acquisition of Der moon as a territory of both, etc, etc,.


Edit: Even if they died or missed the moon, the governments could still fake it. Governments don't lie, so they could get away with faking the landing part of it. And who'd doubt Werner Von Braun




[edit on 20-1-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
There's nothing totally impossible about the idea of travelling to the moon at 200mph, impractical yes but impossible no. Impractical in the need to apply thrust for the whole trip, carry enough fuel, air, water, food and other supplies for a trip taking 50+ days at 200mph. And of course the weight of the radiation hardened pressurised 'plane' to keep the occupants relatively safe until arrival at least. They'd need to aim at where the moon will be about 2 months after departure. There is the (un)small problem of matching the moon's orbital velocity of about 2300mph or the landing's going to be very messy of course.

I doubt this trip would use any less fuel than a NASA trip to the moon, it would actually use even more. Multistage rockets use the largest stages to achieve orbit progressively dumping the spent sections until just the orbitter/re-entry capsule or exploration probe is left, the space shuttle dumps its external fuel tank and solid fuel boosters in the same way to reduce total mass.

'Escape velocity' applies to achieving a stable unpowered orbit but the idea presented doesn't involve orbitting (the earth at least)


[edit on 20/1/2010 by Pilgrum]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join