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.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nobodysavedme
Nope, even with 4 engines thrust to weight ratio is well below 1. Also, you cannot accelerate slowly because then you run out of fuel before reaching orbital speed.edit on 30/12/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)edit on 30/12/11 by Maslo because: typo
Originally posted by nobodysavedme
it is a fallacy you need to go to mach 2 OR MACH 20 to go into orbit.
look at atmospheric study balloons reaching very high earth altitude by just FLOATING UP.....SLOWLY.
Originally posted by Reaper2137
I remember reading about NASA claiming that it could reach the moon and land when the shuttle first came out, that it was capable of going much farther than it has gone in its operational lifetime.
many other fighters have even higher thrust/weight ratio.
the 747 has fuel endurance of at least 12 hours minimum and up to 20 hours.
I've often wondered were NASA would be right now if Obama hadn't killed the program. I think that was the worst mistake of his presidency.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Reaper2137
I've often wondered were NASA would be right now if Obama hadn't killed the program. I think that was the worst mistake of his presidency.
It would be in even deeper state of despair. Constellation program made little technical and economical sense, and was seriously underfunded and delayed. When it comes to spaceflight, Obamas policy is actually similar to that of Tea party, utilising existing commercial systems. If you want to blame someone, then it is the Congress that pushes the SLS and cuts for commercial.
I agree with you except that I think all Obama cared about was cutting or at least containing NASA's budget, so he could spend the money on other priorities.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nobodysavedme
This link will surely interest you, a single-stage to orbit spaceplane being developed, similar to your concept:
Skylon
Note that it still uses the engine as a rocket when above the atmosphere, because that is the most-fuel efficient way to reach orbital speed. Payload capacity is also poor when compared to conventional rockets.
edit on 3/1/12 by Maslo because: rocketedit on 3/1/12 by Maslo because: payload
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nobodysavedme
many other fighters have even higher thrust/weight ratio.
Keyword is fighters. I dont get why are you fixated on 747, which does not have T/W ratio higher than 1 even with 4 modern engines, considering that it is a passenger plane. But even with fighters, it is impossible to achieve orbit.
the 747 has fuel endurance of at least 12 hours minimum and up to 20 hours.
Not at high thrust, but at cruising flight. At thrust above T/W of 1, any plane would run out of fuel long before achieving orbital speed.
the 747 exists already. we could trade the long fuel endurance of the 747 for higher thrust to achieve orbit.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by cloudyday
I agree with you except that I think all Obama cared about was cutting or at least containing NASA's budget, so he could spend the money on other priorities.
Actually, over the past years white house proposed a small increase and then a freeze on NASA budget. It was the congress that is responsible for cuts.