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: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Ignoring all other aspects of the physics for a second, let's say you were able to take off at a point on the Earth going 200mph straight up, towards the orbit of the moon, it would take you about 49 days to get there. The Earth will have spun under you 49 times, and the Moon itself will have almost gone around the Earth twice in that time.

Now let's say you've reached the orbit of the Moon. Since the Moon makes one trip around the Earth every 27 days, it's now moving at about 2000mph relative to you. If you can only go 200mph, how do you land on it? It's either going to outrun you, or you're going to slam into it.




posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


firsrt up rockets not jets and this is assuming the b25 could withstand the massive thrust required to get of planet ( impossible the wings would snap off). how would it land on the moon??? , also the bloody thing would crush in on itself as soon as it got into orbit too fradgile,it would melt on the way home if it somehow managed to get to the moon without imploding and would probably be turned into a flute (metal pipe with holes in it) by all the debris ( rock fragments ) around luna and mother earth. one word impossible



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Your question about airplanes going to the moon seems genuine.


The way to think about flying is to consider that the machines need the

earth's atmosphere for lift and propulsion. The atmosphere is held

close to the earth by gravity. In fact one half of all the molecules

in the earth atmosphere are below eighteen thousand feet.

The rest are thinly dispersed until they are for few that even the most

modern powerful machines can not fine enough atmosphere to support flight. Most would agree that 150,000 feet would be above the atmosphere.

When you travel in a modern jet airliner at about 38,000 feet the air at
that altitude is very thin. the particules of air are so few that the
airplane is close to stall speed by indicated air speed even as it my appear to moving much faster as viewed from below on the earth's surface.

If you tried to climb higher to head off to the moon you would quickly

slow to the minimum indicated air speed need to stay airborne.

As for WWII airplanes, most had compressed air for pressurized breathing

and that was limited to about 28,000 feet, not even far enough to see for yourself that the earth is round.

It is fun to think about an old airplane being on static display in an impossible place, but for it to be true you also need a very advanced
technology to bring it to the display spot.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


Is this really a serious question? I guess I'll pretend it is.

1: Typical rocket engines on vehicles like jets require atmosphere to function. Even the rocket engines that take the space shuttle into space need oxygen to function. That's why they use liquid oxygen to fuel the burn during the launch.

2: The rockets on a typical plane, even if you do give them oxygen to burn, are probably not sufficient to escape the Earth's gravity. Just to enter into a stable orbit, the space shuttle must accelerate to speeds of around 17,500 km/h. The top speed of the B52 you suggested is a paltry 500 mph. So there's no way it's going to break the Earth's gravity and make it to the moon.

3: By the time you loaded down the B52 with necessary linings and such to prevent the astronauts from receiving lethal radiation doses, plus liquid fuel, plus oxygen to breath, plus food and water, etc etc, I doubt the thing would even be able to get off the ground, let alone attain escape velocity.

So in short, no. A plane is not going to fly to the moon. It takes a launch vehicle specifically designed to do so and any vehicle designed for travel within the atmosphere is not going to be making any weekend trips to the moon.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dookie Master

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.


When I was in college, I had a professor that worked for NASA for a while and she told me the same thing. If you compare the aerodynamics of the space shuttle and a brick, they are surprisingly similar. It's horribly un-aerodynamic.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


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.

Dear Sir or Madam,

We at the Lunar Chamber of Commerce do our best to promote tourism as a means of boosting our Satellite's fledgeling economy. We Lunatics are friendly, welcoming people who do our very best to make Earthling visitors feel at home.

But although we are a naturally generous society, resource constraints here on Luna (in particular, the scarcity of water, which must be laboriously harvested from the soil itself) make it impossible for us to be as liberal towards our honoured guests as we would like to be.

In particular, we are unable to offer free drinks to visitors on an indefinite basis, as you suggest in your post. It appears that you have misread our promotional literature, which states quite clearly that 'drinks are free for visitors throughout their first week on the Moon'. I trust the correction will not cause prospective visitors to our Satellite undue disquiet.

I should also like to take this opportunity to advise such visitors that the Lunar Chamber of Commerce, which includes several drinks manufacturers among its members, promotes the enjoyment of alcohol in moderation, particularly in view of the one-sixth gravity and low air pressure within our domes, which are, in themselves, quite a 'heady' experience!

Yours sincerely,

A.A. Gibbous
Secretary

LUNAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TOURISM PROMOTION DIVISION
'You ask for the Moon--we deliver'



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Buenos meses Sr. Gibbeous:

That would be Mr. EnlightenUp. Apologies for the confusion.

The brochure mentioned something about touring the second-to-none recycling facilities. They are run on solar power without downtime and require a vanishingly small amount of replacement material influx compared to the amount re-run through the system, the vast majority being introduced by visitors themselves. Even most of the alcohol is recoverd from the exhalations and expelled fluids of the guests and inhabitants. Arriving under the influence is encouraged as performing a service and may qualify one for further discounts. Even if I had made a grievous misinterpretation about the free alcolohol for extended tours, it still did not seem terribly unreasonable given the claims. But, reading it again it does in fact state that they are free for anyone staying more than a week for the entire duration of the stay. It also states that waste-processing tours are given every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and are half-price during a full moon, all factored into the package price.

If this is in fact, as you state, incorrect, then I suggest your chamber of commerce begin an inquiry into the possible distribution of couterfeit tourist literature. I would publish a scan of the brochure I received but it appears to be printed in special scanner and photo-proof inks and is too fragile to be able to physically withstand more than the one single mailing to myself. I don't know how it's done; it's probably a trade secret. It could be an inside job if that is how your own brochures are printed. Perhaps corruption has found its way into your organization and this is just a bait and switch. I could have been booked on the balloon ride and when I arrived, found out no further reservations have been made (scam to increase material influx to offest inefficiencies without proper repayment?). There has been talk of people disappearing but I thought they were only rumors spead by competitors; now I'm not so sure. Your unsolicited, corrective disclosure indicates that only certain individuals are involved. You may have saved my life.

The problem is that on my current budget in these economic conditions, I suspect I will have to indefinitely delay my trip. The ethanol perk was the final straw in selecing Lunatistan over Hawai'i, well, that and the lack of active volcanoes (I am a documented ifestiophobic currently undergoing treatment). Hawai'i was just a dream but I could not push things too quickly according to my therapist. Thinking about it more, with the other more sinister possibilities out there I will be find myself compelled to stay on ATS all day and scrub any vacation plans for the forseeable future.

Sincerely and with gratitude,
EnlightenUp



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I can see some rookie pilot, his first time up in a tiger, just getting so carried away with the thrill of flying. They would prolly cover up the fact that he made it there and back, because aliens decided to help the foolish
youngster.
The headline would read like......


Rookie airman flies into the sun



A rookie fighter pilot from Ft. Lauderdale, Lt. 1st class Micheal G. Icarus
was reported missing after buzzing the Air force tower at the fort in Fla.
Personel from the tower report the plane was last seen flying directly into the sun.
A massive search is now underway.






[edit on 21-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I think it's a false-flag scenario perpetrated by the metaphasic shielding lobby arm of the military-industrial complex. Now they want to send 40,000 more troops to the sun to do this "search" when we all know it's a war for solar energy. Personally, I think the guy is dead.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 




I think it's a false-flag scenario perpetrated by the metaphasic shielding lobby arm of the military-industrial complex. Now they want to send 40,000 more troops to the sun to do this "search" when we all know it's a war for solar energy. Personally, I think the guy is dead.


After the coffee clean up I just performed, if he isn't dead I'll shoot him
myself.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join