It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrStyx
That is an interesting idea. I still don't understand why we haven't traveled to the moon more than we have. I'm sure they didn't get all the data they needed with one trip. Or maybe they did see all they needed to see there. I'd hope once the private sector starts in on the space race that they make it a point to go back again.
Originally posted by Dr Expired
reply to post by Illustronic
I guess the effort would be worth the while, if it halved the time to Mars?
The probe could also gain extra speed by being slung at a greater speed using the Earth?
Its mass would give a greater sling speed than the moons?
Originally posted by Biigs
Why not sling off every planet,
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
Launching from sea level uses over 90% of it's stored fuel capacity, you know, to defeat the gravity and atmospheric drag. So I believe you should reconsider your theory, we do have to take off from near sea level and closer to the equator you launch from opposite the rotation of the earth the more speed you get for free from said rotational velocity, in all, about an extra 1,000 mph.
An F-16 can travel 920 mph at sea level, at altitude, it can travel nearly twice the speed of sound. (one of the fastest jets at sea level due largely to it's small profile and wings, even though it is a single engine craft).
If you launch a spacecraft from near equatorial sea level to the west, you will have to reach 19,500 mph instead of 17,500 mph to reach a stable earth orbit.edit on 3-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)