It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# 'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

page: 2
95
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:40 AM
to get to the Moon in 4 hours would require a constant acceleration of at least 7.3 G for two hours and then constant deceleration -7.3 G for two hours, maximum speed achieved would be around 53 km/s (33 miles per second) which is roughly 190,000 km/h (177,500 miles per hour). Nothing like this was ever achieved.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:46 AM
I'll wait till i see it in action before i raise my arms, but sounds cool

edit on 29-7-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:48 AM

Yeah that brings into question "secret space programs" and what conspiracies are associated with it.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: grey580

Everything is relative.

In an enclosed space like an airplane for example.

If you throw a ball inside the plane. The speed of the ball is not affected by how fast you're flying.

You feel acceleration but once you're up to cruising speed you can enjoy a nice whiskey.

Being in an "enclosed space" has no effect on g-forces at all...

Because when you've got to cruising speed, you've stopped accelerating!

If the plane turned, for example, g-forces would also apply depending on the direction of the turn.

If you threw a ball while the plane was accelerating, or turning even, you would notice it too would be affected.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

I'm just trying to learn here Bro.

Everything works exactly the same everywhere all the time.

In or out of atmosphere doesn't matter.

You see astronauts floating in orbit, because they are in orbit.

This simply put means they have achieved escape velocity.

This is when, for earths gravitational pull, they reach approximately 17,000 mph.

At that speed earths gravity can't pull you back down, you have escaped the clutches of gravity.

It all sounds fancy but in reality, it just means you are moving forward at the same speed you are falling.

So you fall over the horizon, meaning you don't fall at all, but you and everything around you act like you are.

The speed required for orbit is different depending on the mass of the object you orbit, bigger requires faster.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:58 AM

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

Keep dreaming. If we had interstellar technology then we would be using it.

I disagree.
The application of any such technology would be military first, and they would not be sharing it with NASA.

If such technology does exist, it would be under the control of the military, which has absolutely no remit for space exploration. This or similar derivative technology would be considered to be an advantage over any and all enemies, so it would be tightly controlled.

This is one of the many reasons I prefer to believe that credible examples of UFO's are probably likely to be US tech controlled by the military, rather than alien visitors.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:03 AM

originally posted by: network dude
LOL, I am afraid you don't understand. it's not called an "idea of physics" it's a freaking LAW. You don't break the law.

And yet here we have NASA, and people much smarter than you or I, stating that this seems to indeed be genuine.

So, what do you believe?

Do you believe that these people (who are much smarter than you) are genuinely conflicted in their opinions but can't deny the evidence speaks for itself, or do you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!" in irrational defiance of what several other smarter people are claiming?

It's only going to be appearing to "break the law" until they test it and discover an avenue allowing them to confirm that it conforms to the laws of physics, which I'm sure they will do given time.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:05 AM

Everything works exactly the same everywhere all the time.

That can't be right?
In atmosphere, or out?
Wouldn't throwing a ball be different?

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:05 AM
It's not the top speed, but the rate at which you get there.

Gradual acceleration will cancel the problems of G-force. Might mean four hours to the moon will actually be a bit longer than that...

Still... The possibilities are staggering. If this drive actually does as advertised? Wow. Just wow.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:16 AM

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

Keep dreaming. If we had interstellar technology then we would be using it.

There are those that say we are.

I know this; if they don't want us to know, they ain't telling.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:37 AM

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

He is correct. It does not matter where you are, on earth , in space, on Mars, inside a blcak hole! Wherever your speed changes ie you accelrate or decelerate you are imparting a force. This force, thanks to Newton's observations results in an equal and opposite reaction.

Soooo a force pushes you forward (rocket thrust), the reaction is felt in your face as a G force.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:39 AM

Gravity works just the same, the only difference is inside an atmosphere you also have friction which causes drag.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:43 AM

originally posted by: windlass34
to get to the Moon in 4 hours would require a constant acceleration of at least 7.3 G for two hours and then constant deceleration -7.3 G for two hours, maximum speed achieved would be around 53 km/s (33 miles per second) which is roughly 190,000 km/h (177,500 miles per hour). Nothing like this was ever achieved.

Thank you for doing the math on that!

At 7.3 g a 180 lb. person would effectively weigh 1314 lbs. Your heart would struggle to pump blood through mashed vessels and your lungs would strain to expand to inhale air. I don't see anyone doing that for two hours.

I believe the biggest hurdles to space travel are going to be inertial dampeners and navigational deflectors. It doesn't matter how fast you can go if you can't counter g forces and get small particles out of your way.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:47 AM

Well, if we increased the travel time to 8 hours, we could cut the g-forces involved down to more manageable levels, or even up to 12 hours - it's still quicker than what we can do now and a lot quicker than a flight from London to LA.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:08 PM
BTW, have we figured out how magnets work yet...?

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:32 PM

The G-Force depends on how fast the rocket accelerates, not its velocity. So if they take it slow and steady, it should be fine.

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:34 PM

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:42 PM

Have we figured out how Google works yet?

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:03 PM
Guys there was another article about this on ATS a few weeks ago - the warp drive one. The thing is 'they' can not explain this effect at a non quantum level. So they shone a light through the beam of intense polarised microwaves and the light did some thing weird. It was faster that it should have been. The article then ties this to a theoretical warp bubble.

Also the thrust was achieved in a chamber with atmosphere in it so may have been caused by gas expansion. The real results will come when they achieve this in a vacuum chamber

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:03 PM

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: network dude
LOL, I am afraid you don't understand. it's not called an "idea of physics" it's a freaking LAW. You don't break the law.

And yet here we have NASA, and people much smarter than you or I, stating that this seems to indeed be genuine.

So, what do you believe?

Do you believe that these people (who are much smarter than you) are genuinely conflicted in their opinions but can't deny the evidence speaks for itself, or do you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!" in irrational defiance of what several other smarter people are claiming?

It's only going to be appearing to "break the law" until they test it and discover an avenue allowing them to confirm that it conforms to the laws of physics, which I'm sure they will do given time.

It was kind of a joke. Try having a discussion on hydrogen as a fuel. the science police will promptly arrest you.

top topics

95