#1
Ok so I was thinking.
To get out of the earth's atmosphere into space:
could you do that with a slower speed then tens of thousands of kilometers per hour?
Couldn't you put a little bit more power in it, then the gravitational pull is?
And therefore making a spacecraft more like a big plane which can take you all the way to the moon with TONS of equipment? Which would be cheaper then the current crafts too?
I think there is a flaw in my reasoning please indicate where

(I am dutch please don't make fun of me for using the wrong words)

edit: remember a modified plane heat resistant, with extra electrical engines or nuclear for space travel.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Jul 29, 2009,
#2
yes, that's the principal of spaceship 1 and 2 (Virgin Galactic). However, the idea of using a smaller space craft to travel to mars seems a little bit silly. I personally like the idea of using (your) idea to escape the earths atmosphere, before setting off from the moon.
<--- This is Wally. Not Waldo.

Gear List:
Ibanez RG570
Fender MIA Strat (in black, HSS)
Godawful Marshall MG practice amp

My Youtube
My godawful blog
#4
Quote by Joelieo
Of all the places to ask this question...


I have no where else to ask this
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#5
i guess your theory is good but im sure nasa or russia have reasearched this method
Without music, life would be a mistake.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Quote by noob888
I love you for that thread...


Quote by MightyAl
I am now mentally scarred by the image of Peter Crouch getting penalised.
#6
I assume its because of friction with wind and the need to carry its own weight?

Unless you mean at an acceleration of 9.8+ m/s^2?

Edit:- I mean friction with air :S
Last edited by luv090909 at Jul 29, 2009,
#7
Quote by luv090909
I assume its because of friction with wind and the need to carry its own weight?

Unless you mean at an acceleration of 9.8+ m/s^2?

I mean that acceleration yes,
normal planes can get to an altitude of 10km,
when they go up the gravitationall pull get's less and the windresistance too...
so I thought it could work.
(ofcourse alter the engines a bit)
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#8
you'll need to carry and burn much more fuel to escape the earths atmosphere travelling at a low speed..
#9
Probably a waste of fuel.

384403 kilometers is the distance between the earth and moon. (as pulled from a random google search)

at a *velocity* of 0.001 km/s (10m/s), that would take 296. something Years to reach the moon

I assume, as with all things, theres a peak to reach max fuel : distance efficiency, which is probably what NASA etc are using?

Edit: - The velocity was the velocity after reducing from gravity, I'm sleepy, so something up there might be wrong
Last edited by luv090909 at Jul 29, 2009,
#10
Quote by luv090909
Probably a waste of fuel.

384403 kilometers is the distance between the earth and moon. (as pulled from a random google search)

at a *velocity* of 0.001 km/s (10m/s), that would take 296. something Years to reach the moon

I assume, as with all things, theres a peak to reach max fuel : distance efficiency, which is probably what NASA etc are using?


ofcourse I don't mean minimum what they need
but appollo 10 went at 40.000km per hour.
With that speed you could reach the moon in 8 hours.
I thought maybe they can make a plane which takes maybe 4-5 days to reach the moon, but can take much more equipment.
Can't imagine that the current rockets can take a whole base and vehicles etc with them.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#11
indeed regular engines wouldn't work that well under zero gravity, also not all planes can get to 10 km...
Your idea is good, but you're also forgetting that when you come back into the atmosphere the heat is incredible, the principle of a regular plane does not (not in any way at all) work in near-vacuum conditions (it stays up because of air)...
Let me explain it simple, when it would leave the atmosphere, the thing (air) holding the plain up wouldn't be there anymore, so the plain wouldn't stay up and would fall down again into the atmosphere... And even if it would have enough power to escape the earth's gravitational pull, it would be impossible to control the airplane-like spaceship...

So, maybe with some alterations it could work, dunno really :s
Gear:
Fender Jazzmaster
Boss DS-2
Digitech RP150 (with Line6 EX-1 Exp pedal)
Orange Crush 30R


My Youtube Page
Read this!You know you really want to...

#12
I'm pretty sure that this topic is way too complicated for the pit to discuss.

The saying "it's not rocket science" exists for a reason.
PPPPPPPOSTFINDER
#13
Quote by poipoi
indeed regular engines wouldn't work that well under zero gravity, also not all planes can get to 10 km...
Your idea is good, but you're also forgetting that when you come back into the atmosphere the heat is incredible, the principle of a regular plane does not (not in any way at all) work in near-vacuum conditions (it stays up because of air)...
Let me explain it simple, when it would leave the atmosphere, the thing (air) holding the plain up wouldn't be there anymore, so the plain wouldn't stay up and would fall down again into the atmosphere... And even if it would have enough power to escape the earth's gravitational pull, it would be impossible to control the airplane-like spaceship...

So, maybe with some alterations it could work, dunno really :s

wait I will google some numbers now

but they have designed new planes where are much more efficient and have different engines too. If you combine that with electrical engines for space it might work.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#14
Then I guess it would be fuel:distance covered efficiency?

Or maybe even fuel:distance:time?
#15
it might require more power and fuel to travel upwards horizontally (your concept) than just upwards (normal rocket). if your rocketship had the same engine as a normal rocket you would waste more fuel because you have to travel in two distances, your ship would have to fight more air resistance because of it not being as aerodynamic as a rocket and since your going to be traveling slower youll need a lot more power (imagine yourself pushing something heavy on wheels fast thus gaining momentum compared to you pushing the same thing slow all the time). i might be wrong but thats how i see it.
#16
There's actually a ton of research being put into building something with an engine and wings to fly out of the atmosphere. It requires tons of speed though, I think something like Mach 20ish, and the fastest thing we have built for this purpose hasn't gone nearly as fast as that. There's this new technology called "scramjets" that will probably be able to provide enough thrust in the future. They're like turbojets but can make a plane go way faster.

They're trying to fix the issue with space shuttles (the things that have rockets or whatever), because they're so damn expensive, and you have to detach a whole bunch of stuff (so they're not reusable), and they require a ton of gas. Building a 'space plane' will allow average people to go to the moon and whatnot, pretty cool.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
#17
Quote by kr1stians
it might require more power and fuel to travel upwards horizontally (your concept) than just upwards (normal rocket). if your rocketship had the same engine as a normal rocket you would waste more fuel because you have to travel in two distances, your ship would have to fight more air resistance because of it not being as aerodynamic as a rocket and since your going to be traveling slower youll need a lot more power (imagine yourself pushing something heavy on wheels fast thus gaining momentum compared to you pushing the same thing slow all the time). i might be wrong but thats how i see it.


I thought using lift would take less energy, then using so much power as a rocket does to get yourself from the ground to space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Jul 29, 2009,
#19
Quote by ACG



Ah, you beat me to it. Haha, I've got this issue at home. Thought of it when I was reading the first post.
<--- This is Wally. Not Waldo.

Gear List:
Ibanez RG570
Fender MIA Strat (in black, HSS)
Godawful Marshall MG practice amp

My Youtube
My godawful blog
#20
Quote by vulgarmachine
Ah, you beat me to it. Haha, I've got this issue at home. Thought of it when I was reading the first post.


Haha..

I only get the e-newsletter, think it's worth it to buy a subscription?
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
#21
Quote by Neo Evil11
I thought using lift would take less energy, then using so much power as a rocket does to get yourself from the ground to space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne

In order to lift the same payload, you would have to expend a certain minimum amount of energy whatever the delivery method.
Rockets and the like are in fact much cheaper, largely because very little of them(almost nothing, even if it is manned) is expected to return safely through the atmosphere, and you thus have to sheild only a small portion of the whole from the heat of re-entry.
#22
Quote by Neo Evil11
ofcourse I don't mean minimum what they need
but appollo 10 went at 40.000km per hour.
With that speed you could reach the moon in 8 hours.
I thought maybe they can make a plane which takes maybe 4-5 days to reach the moon, but can take much more equipment.
Can't imagine that the current rockets can take a whole base and vehicles etc with them.

Apollo 11 took several days to reach the moon. The Saturn V's may have reached 40,000km/h at a peak speed(I'll take your word for it for now), but they couldn't maintain that for the duration of the trip to the Moon.
#23
EXTREME

FACEPALM
Quote by imdeth
This man deserves my +1

+1

Quote by denizenz
Go in peace my son, and teach to the pit dwellers what I have shown unto you.


ಠ_ಠ


XBL: huffy409
#24
Quote by MightyAl
Apollo 11 took several days to reach the moon. The Saturn V's may have reached 40,000km/h at a peak speed(I'll take your word for it for now), but they couldn't maintain that for the duration of the trip to the Moon.


I know

but what if you had an airplane with a nucleair engine. You could fly on a decent speed out of the earths atmosphere. Get an incredible speed in space. And it would all be very cheap.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#25
Quote by Neo Evil11
I know

but what if you had an airplane with a nucleair engine. You could fly on a decent speed out of the earths atmosphere. Get an incredible speed in space. And it would all be very cheap.

If nuclear engines were cheap, reliable and safe, they'd be in use.
#26
Quote by MightyAl
If nuclear engines were cheap, reliable and safe, they'd be in use.

because there have been so many problems with nuclear engines before...
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#27
Quote by Neo Evil11
because there have been so many problems with nuclear engines before...

Are you kidding me?

Its NUCLEAR.

Its a well known fact that Nuclear is Latin for This-Shit-Will-Fuck-You-Up.
Quote by imdeth
This man deserves my +1

+1

Quote by denizenz
Go in peace my son, and teach to the pit dwellers what I have shown unto you.


ಠ_ಠ


XBL: huffy409
#28
Quote by Neo Evil11
I have no where else to ask this

Hardcore forum. They know all about space exploration.
RULE BRITANNIA
#29
[quote="'[x"]Huffy[x]']Are you kidding me?

Its NUCLEAR.

Its a well known fact that Nuclear is Latin for This-Shit-Will-Fuck-You-Up.
Nucular.

It's pronounced "nucular"
#30
*without reading any of the thread, and with slim to nil knowledge of this stuff, so please don't flame me.*

Yeah, planes need lift to get off the ground and there isn't any lift in space, so you'd need some sort of thrusters for this idea to be effective. Also, a normal plane would disentegrate in the atmosphere, so you would also have to make the plane out of the same stuff the space shuttles are made of, making the plane heavier, needing more thrust, more fuel, etc.

So basically, we'd need a focking super-plane, unless this nuclear engine you speak of is perfected so it won't blow up or turn you into a mutant.


Quote by CoreysMonster

I still like cho0onger more than the 2 of you

Quote by OneHappyCamper
joke's on you, i actually fuck my cat
#31
Quote by CoreysMonster
Nucular.

It's pronounced "nucular"

0/10, you fail, troll.
Quote by imdeth
This man deserves my +1

+1

Quote by denizenz
Go in peace my son, and teach to the pit dwellers what I have shown unto you.


ಠ_ಠ


XBL: huffy409
#32
[quote="'[x"]Huffy[x]']0/10, you fail, troll.
CoreysMonster=/= troll
Sure, he's confrontational, but certainly not a troll.


Quote by CoreysMonster

I still like cho0onger more than the 2 of you

Quote by OneHappyCamper
joke's on you, i actually fuck my cat
#33
Quote by cho0onger
CoreysMonster=/= troll
Sure, he's confrontational, but certainly not a troll.

Either way, he's still wrong.
Quote by imdeth
This man deserves my +1

+1

Quote by denizenz
Go in peace my son, and teach to the pit dwellers what I have shown unto you.


ಠ_ಠ


XBL: huffy409
#34
[quote="'[x"]Huffy[x]']Either way, he's still wrong.
Yeah, you've got me there.


Quote by CoreysMonster

I still like cho0onger more than the 2 of you

Quote by OneHappyCamper
joke's on you, i actually fuck my cat
#35
Quote by cho0onger
*without reading any of the thread, and with slim to nil knowledge of this stuff, so please don't flame me.*

Yeah, planes need lift to get off the ground and there isn't any lift in space, so you'd need some sort of thrusters for this idea to be effective. Also, a normal plane would disentegrate in the atmosphere, so you would also have to make the plane out of the same stuff the space shuttles are made of, making the plane heavier, needing more thrust, more fuel, etc.

So basically, we'd need a focking super-plane, unless this nuclear engine you speak of is perfected so it won't blow up or turn you into a mutant.


we were ofcourse talking about a modified plane
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ