The answer to this and many other questions will become obvious when you grow up.
2006-09-01 00:17:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
25km is too low, it is still in the upper atmosphere. But suppose it were high enough. Is there another problem with your idea? Yes there is. You can't just stay still out of the atmosphere, you would simply fall straight down like any stone would if let go high above the ground.
But instead of staying still, suppose you were moving sideways at 100 km/h. Then instead of falling straight down you would land several km away, since you moved several km sideways during the fall. If you doubled your sideways speed to 200 km/h, you would land twice as far away. If you increase your sideways speed 100 times, up to 10,000 km/h, you land MORE than 100 times as far away because now the curvature of the Earth makes the ground curve away from you as move sideways during the fall. You need to fall farther which takes longer giving you more time to move sideways before hitting the ground than you would have above a flat surface. In fact, there at a special speed, about 30,000 km/h, the ground curves away so quickly that you NEVER hit the ground. You just stay at the same altitude, always falling toward a ground that is always curving away from you. In such a case, you are in orbit. At such a speed, you can go anywhere in the world in an hour. But it does take a lot of power to get up to such a speed, so it is not cheap, even though the engine is off the whole time after you get up to that speed.
2006-09-01 01:55:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You will burn a lot of fuel staying up for 12 hours, and a little more killing your several hundred meter/sec rotational velocity and then restoring it so you can land. The extra-atmospheric sub-orbital approach has been studied and various airline companies claim they will do it from time to time. Look up "rocket planes" and "ultra sonic transport" and buzz words like that.
Considering no one wanted to spend enough to make the Concorde fiscally worthwhile, I doubt you will find a market for these flashier alternatives. In principle you could make the total flight time about 1 to 1-1/2 hours for the kind of trip you describe.
2006-09-01 15:46:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. Quark 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dynamics of flight and space flight. All aircraft/spacecraft rely on the four principles of flight: Thrust - Lift - Drag - Gravity. As long as thrust and lift are greater than drag and gravity a plane will fly. In space flight, a rocket must get high enough and fast enough to "escape" earths gravity (escape velocity). Outside the atmosphere, no drag and going east (same as the earth) fast enough (thrust) a spacecraft reaches no gravity because it is now falling. Everything falling with it is weightless. As it falls, the point on earth where it would land is also going east. Since the time it would take the spacecraft to fall back to earth would be a while the journey in falling causes it to have to spiral down and the spiral takes up several orbits Since the forward momentum (thrust) of the spacecraft has no atmosphere (drag) and the fall is no gravity it stays in orbit. To go up and wait on the earth you could have no forward momentum, no thrust so gravity would bring you back down, you could not wait on the earth to spin.
2006-09-04 17:35:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by orion_1812@yahoo.com 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
first of all nice theory
here are the flaws:
alot of fuel is required to just get out of the atmosphere and out of the earths gravitational pull
approx. 1.2 million pounds of thrust is needed just to get a space shuttle off.
the g forces sustained in that trip are severe and training is needed to be fit enough to endure them
so basically the age group that can travel are 20-35
another thing since you'll have to keep alot of fuel the craft will have to be huge so that it can accomadate people and all that fuel
and the hazard of thousands of gallons of fuel will be immense
these are some of the points why air travel, though long is safer and easier.
2006-09-01 00:25:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zuberi 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Technically yes. {But you need to go about 80kms i suppose}
But economically expensive.
2006-09-01 04:15:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Zuberi is right
2006-09-01 00:40:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋