The world has produced many kinds of rocket and missile such as V-1,V-2,Saturn V,R-1,R-16,Trident,Tomahawk and etc?If any of you knows about rocketry,can you guess the most powerful thrust power the rocket can produce?
218483
The most powerful and most complex machine ever built was the Saturn 5. Out of all the Saturn 5's built, only 2 never flew. One is on staic display at kennedy space center and the other is at houston flight control. With 7.5 million pounds of thrust in the first stage and over 1.5 in the second, the saturn had the greatest fire power. Its first launch sent a sound pressure wave that was felt farther away than even being able to see the rocket.
550472
yes i do, it's a russian made short range anti aircraft anti missle weapons system.its a mobile weapons system with radar,it's armed with missiles to shoot down cruise missles, helicopters, spy drones,u.a.v,etc,it also has two very powerfull long range self auto mated machine guns,its a formidable weapon for self defense.i'll give you the link to it as i study only the best weapons in the world.
348959
it is a russian built medium range multiple rocket launcher. its the worlds best for range and destructive powerness, here ill give you the link
169960
It relies on the principle of conservation of momentum. When you consider the rocket and the propellant inside it as one system, there are no external forces acting on this system, so the momentum of this entire system must be conserved. Now, rockets exhaust propellant. This gives the propellant velocity in the backward direction, so something must go forward to keep the total momentum the same. What is that something? It's the rocket.
119555
AK-47's are nice weapons. So are Air to Air missiles! America does it too, so don't complain.
260449
You are using the term "power" incorrectly. Power is the rate of production of energy. A jet may have enough energy, but it does not have enough power. A fully fueled jet may be able to burn all it's fuel with oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere to generate enough energy to make it to orbit, but it takes many hours to do that, and all the time it is being slowed by friction with the atmosphere. The shuttle burns all it's fuel in 10 minutes, and it carries it's own oxygen in a tank so it can operate outside the atmosphere. So even though they may have similar energy, the shuttle has far more power.
31389
engines for space craft don't need to constantly exert forward thrust to keep going, like airplanes. They need to to escape the earth's gravity, but once cleared, they can keep going on forward momentum, using brief propulsion to correct the course of the space craft. \n\nMars and the moon cannot use gasoline based craft, there's no oxygen to burn, so they likely need electric motors, maybe solar powered. Not exactly sure on this but I would say an electric motor of sorts.
581794
Obviously the maximum airspeed is a function of thrust and drag.  Consider that a missile is a aerodynamic body with high thrust and low drag.  What determines the maximum speed of the missile?  \n\nDrag can be dissected into many parts.  Optimizing the shape of the body requires that you pick a environ to operate in, but the basic wedge rocket planes were pretty good (X15).  If you are only asking about jet aircraft, then the question is efficiency at what speed.  Subsonic or supersonic?  Part of the drag is due to turbulent structures in the wake of the body.  These can change for different velocity regimes, depending on the aircraft's shape.\n\nIf you are asking about low speed regimes, minimizing drag can be achieved by making all components of the aircraft as narrow as possible, and ensuring all surfaces remain laminar.  In other words, reduce frontal area and reduce turbulence.  Of course you still are required to produce lift.  Hence the tendency for long thin tapered wings.  Low frontal area, low drag.\n\nMost of these criteria can only be exploited as far as the materials technology will allow.  The rocket plane will burn up at speed in the lower atmosphere.  The longest, thinnest wing will snap.  Various other issues.  So you could say the real limit of airspeed is materials technology.  Hope this helps!
236090
A. First, do a quick magnitude check to see if you can use Newtonian physics or need to use special relativity. Your Newtonian velocity would be \nv = at \n  = 1g x seconds in a year  \n  = 10m/s x 3.15x10^7 seconds \n  = 3.15x10^8 m/s.\nwhich is greater than the speed of light (= 2.99x10^8 m/s), so you do need to use relativity.\n\nThe relativistic equation for velocity after constant acceleration is (source 1):\n v = c tanh(aT/c)\nusing aT from above, \n v = c tanh(3.15x10^8 / 2.99x10^8)\n   = 0.78c\n   = 2.34 x 10^8 m/s\n\nB. Now that you have v, use the special relativity energy equation to calculate your energy (see source 3)\nE = (gamma) x mc^2\n(gamma) = 1/sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)\n(gamma) = 1.61\nE = 1.61mc^2\n\nThis energy includes the rest mass, mc^2, which we don't need to add (it was there before we started), so the kinetic energy is\nKe = 0.61mc^2\n   = 5.48x10^19 Joules\nOf course, no propulsion systems are 100% efficient, so it would take more energy than this.  Rockets, in particular, are very inefficient, and would take many orders of magnitude more energy.\n\nC.  Nothing we have even comes close. For comparison, this is about 100 times the entire world's energy production in 2002.
524909
lol first of all wellcome back reporter, i missed you.ok a klub missile is a russian built anti ship anti submarine missle(n.a.t.o name ss-n-27).it's the state of the art modern missile capable of destrying any modern stealth ship or submarine, it's the only one of its kind in the world, here i'll give you the link to it,
675818
Check out Stephen Hawking's site.  It contains theories and lectures.  If anyone's an expert on workholes, it's him.\n\nThis second site looks pretty good.\n\nA candidate for breakthrough propulsion physics has been identified in the form of a traversable wormhole created by virtue of ultrahigh magnetic or electric fields with an additional exotic energy component. Maccone (1995) claimed that cylindrically symmetric ultrahigh magnetic (electric) fields can create a traversable wormhole in the Morris and Thorne (1988) framework. It has been shown that this is incorrect. Instead, a hypercylinder curvature effect having a position dependent gravitational potential is induced. This effect can be used to create a wormhole by patching the hypercylinder envelope to a throat that is induced by either radially stressing the ultrahigh field or employing additional exotic energy. Maccone correctly showed that the speed of light through the hypercylinder region is slowed by the magnetic induced gravitational field there. This suggests a way to perform laboratory experiments whereby one could apply an ultrahigh magnetic field in a vacuum, thereby creating a hypercylinder curvature effect, and measure the speed of a light beam through it. While chemical explosive/implosive magnetic induction technology has achieved static field strengths of ~ several x 103 Tesla, the peak rate-of-rise of field is ~ 109 Tesla/sec. Field strengths > 109 - 1010 Tesla would need to be generated to impart a measurable slowing of light speed in this scenario. It is proposed that the peak rate-of-rise of field be exploited as a means to achieve this goal in the near-term. Magnetic induction technologies based on nuclear explosives/implosives may need to be considered in order to achieve results of larger magnitude. A Wormhole Induction Propulsion system has been introduced to exploit the possibilities of traversable wormholes.
548814
The assembly of rockets and other space components is still extremely expensive for a number of good reasons.\n\n1. The performance demanded by these applications require a very low tolerance on the parts and use exotic materials and engineering practicies that are expensive.\n\n2. It takes a very long time to assemble an engine. I imagine the shuttle engines (liquid) may take a good portion of a year with a rather large engineering team.\n\n3. A lot of the costs are involved with development and testing. When compared to the commercial sector, rocket development is still quite expensive per unit. While a number of rockets have been produced, 20 rockets is a lot different from 300 aircraft that the commercial industry sees.\n\n\nHere is an example using information from actual technical documents,\n\nThe space shuttle main engine (SSME), uses turbines much like jet engines to pump the fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. These turbines have to pump about 1000 lbs of fuel and oxidizer to the chamber per SECOND! These turbines have blades in which each blade (that will fit in your hand) produces about 600 horsepower.\n\nThe preburners operate at about 5000 PSI and at about 1500 degrees F.  \n\nThe main combustion chamber face plate (where all the fuel is injected) has a diameter of, try to picture this, 17.74 INCHES with an operating pressure of about 3000 PSI at about 1700 degrees F.\n\nImagine a large dinner plate with 1000 lbs of fuel and oxidizer flowing through it /second operating at those pressures and temps and you'll soon understand why its expensive.
495008
A solid propellant rocket has a solid fuel core, for example gunpowder. A liquid propellant rocket, such as an ICBM, has liquid for fuel, like gas (but a specialized fuel more developed than gas).\n\nA rocket with solid fuel can only go a short distance. Liquid fuel is used more for missiles that have a long way to go and can be guided (intelligent).
534700
Building an engine that can get close to the speed of light is much easier, we basically know how to do it now, a low thruse engine that can run for long periods of time in space will just keep accelerating since there is no resistance. NASA is now developing such engines - ion engines.\n\nConversly we don't really have any good ideas on how to build an engine to bend space, or if it is even possible.
192994
the made airguns during wwii as experimental weapons. germany even shot a few to no effect. aim was to create a vortex to disttrub aircraft. theory was sound, and there is a less than half size model or two about doing special effects, but the german version failed
597305
I used to make rockets when I was young. A lot of them exploded, but I used many different oxidiser/fuel combinations - fuels including aluminium,red phosphorous, carbon, icing sugar, etc and oxidisers like ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, potassium chlorate, potassium perchlorate, nitrocellulose (home made and lots of fun) but these are not readily availible. The easiest way of making a rocket from readily availible items (not really household items but easy to obtain) would be to use gunpowder (made from flowers of sulphur, sulpheter (potassium nitrate) and charcoal powder). Do an internet search for gunpowder. Tips - be very careful (I take no responsiblity if you hurt yourself), grind the powders as fine as possible - the finer the better - use a pestle and motar, use some sort of binder if possible - even if it's sugar). The rocket shell must be strong and light - learn from the rockets in fireworks - it is easiest to use a cardboard shell with a plaster of paris plug at the top and a plaster of paris nozzle on the other end. I tried metal shells - they heat up quickly, weaken and burst open. Ignite electronically from a distance (use a battery, a long cable and fuse wire in the fuel at the exit nozzle of the rocket). \n\nThere are some general guide lines - you will have to experiment with nozzle design, length/diameter ratios of rocket, fuel composition (burn speed) and ways of packing the fuel. One can make a hollow along the center of the rocket from top to bottom to facilitate gas flow and uniform  burning - check out basic solid fuel rocket designs on the google and the net. There are also various types of launch pads you can use to make sure your rocket is going in a straight line with enough velocity to keep on a straight path. You should also put stabilising fins on the base of your rocket. \n\nWhen you get more advanced, you can include some kind of parachute to deploy when the fuel is spent (using a secondary charge to pop open the cone and release it)\n\nBe sure to launch the rockets in an open field of green grass (to avoid possible fires) and away from any houses or people. There are lots of amature rocket clubs. I suggest you join one and get some advice there. They generally buy their rocket engines off the shelf with fixed burn rates, burn times and total thrust. These are more reliable, more consistent and safer than home made engines. You will have to do lots of research to get all the information you need - and the internet is great for that.\n\nGood luck and remember - safety first!
327205
The Saturn V rocket was launched 13 times.  A total of 15 were built.  Apollo 4 and 6 were unmanned test-launches, and Apollo 8-17 were lander tests and flights to the moon.  One last Saturn V was used to launch Skylab-1 in 1973.  Two saturn V's were never used, and many of thier pieces are on display.