what is the maximum speed of a chemical rocket?
117189
Depends.  (How many times does that answer show up?)\nThe rocket equation is\nV = Vex * log(m0/m1)\nwhere \nV is final velocity\nVex is the rocket exhaust velocity\nm0 is liftoff mass\nm1 is burnout mass\nThis equation says (e.g.) that you need a ratio of liftoff to burnout weights = e (2.718, base of natural logarithms) to achieve a V = Vex.\nThe equation is used as-is for a single-stage rocket.  For multistage (serial not parallel burns) rockets you sum the V values for each successive stage.\nVex of the Shuttle main engines, which are pretty state of the art for efficiency, is about 15000 ft/sec.  (You could do better but you'd be working with much more exotic, toxic and pricey chemistry than Shuttle's good old LH/LOX system.)\nSo the answer to the first question is: Every time you increase the m0/m1 ratio by a factor of 2.718 the burnout velocity becomes 15000 ft/sec larger, so there is no theoretical maximum speed.  However, you say "using current designs".  If in addition to using the Shuttle main engines this means using existing vehicles, propellant tanks, etc. then a lot of work would be needed to get the answer.  The Shuttle itself cannot go beyond low earth orbit, so you'd have to piece parts together to make the fastest practically achievable interplanetary (IP) vehicle.  You need ~35000 ft/sec to escape earth's gravitational field.  This means you need an m0/m1 of about e^2.3 or 10 just to get into IP orbit.  Now you get into tradeoffs.  How fast do you want to get there?  Slower means less rocket fuel needed, but more mass is needed to support a longer trip which means more fuel.  How comfortable must it be?  There are too many questions, too many trades, too much engineering to cover it all here.  I hope this gives you a start.
572514
Other methods involve pressurized air in a bottle with water, makes a crude rocket, there is some video of an asian guy who made a rocket suit with about 20 2 liter bottles hooked up to a pump system that shot him up in the air over water a ways, then he crashes down awkwardly.  Poor guy. Probably for a game show or something, idk.   \n\nOther rocket mixtures use liquid or solid fuel, depends what you mean and want when you say "Rocket".  Like are you trying to make something to play with in the yard, or trying to make your own ICBM?  \n\nAll you need is some source of thrust to be propelled out the back end which because of Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite reaction means that it can operate in a vacuum, with no medium to push against (unlike a propeller or jet engine or something of that nature).
574734
Something very close to it already exists:  Ion drive.  This uses charged xenon particles as its propellant.  The acceleration is very low, but it is much more efficient than chemical rockets.  NASA has already put it to practical use with their Deep Space 1 probe, and will use it again with their Helium 3 probe.\n\nOf course, that's still a mass-reaction drive.  A rather exotic one, but still...\n\nOne way of using light for propulsion is with a "solar sail," which The Planetary Society tried to test with its Cosmos-1 mission.  Unfortunately, the probe was lost in a launch failure.  They want to try again, though; you might want to write to them about your idea.
10186
Depends on the media in which it propagates. The temperature and the pressure also slightly affect the speed. In air it's about 330 m/s.
272349
Ca(s) + 2HCl(aq)-->CaCl2 + H2(g)\n\nor...\n\nCalcium Chloride and Hydrogen Gas... you know... the stuff that fuels rockets! :)
747360
Well gosh....  \n\nsince the only linear unit mentioned in the question is 18 ft/s  let's assume that the 60 is going to give us acceleration in ft/sec^2 \n\nSo, the position function for this is the second integral of the acceleration function, right? \n\nso...  the first anti-derivative of 60t is  30t^2   which gives the velocity, so at the end of the boost phase, our rocket is moving 30 * 3 * 3 = 270 ft/s \n\nand the second antiderivative is 10t^3  right?  \n\nSo, the position at time T is 10 * 3 * 3 * 3 = 270 feet.  (odd coincidence, but there you are...) \n\nNow, the rocket begins a SECOND acceleration by gravity of -32 ft/s negative 'cause we're accelerating DOWN now... ....   but this time the acceleration is constant,  so \n\nV = gt   and s = 1/2  a  t^2 so, we're slowing from 270 feet per second to zero at the top...  and  t = v/g = 270 / 32 = 8.44 seconds and the height we coast to is the 270 we had at the end of boost plus   1/2  *  32  * 8.44 * 8.44 = 1140 feet.  \n\nThe parachute is going to open after 14 seconds...   so, 14-8.44 is 5.56 seconds of free-fall (and we'll ignore air resistance again) so, we go from zero to something in 5.56 seconds....   and position is 1140 - ( 1/2  * g  * t^2 ) again...   so, the parachute opens at \n\n1140 - (1/2  * 32  * 5.56 * 5.56 )  = 645 feet. \n\nad the velocity is  gt = -32 * 5.56 = -178 feet per second...  \n\nNow, for the NEXT five seconds, we slow under the effect of the parachute   to  -18 ft/sec -- so,  we slow by 160 feet per second in five seconds, so the acceleration of the parachute is (oddly) 32 feet/second squared (huh, how odd is that? )  \n\nSo, the distance traveled during that phase is Vo t + 1/2 at^2  \n\nSo, we have (-160 * 5) + (1/2*32*5*5) =  -800 + 400 = 400 feet.  \n\nand from 400 feet up, we continue down at 18 ft/s for an additional  22 seconds...  \n\nand the rocket lands at t = 22 + 5 +  14 + 3  = 44 seconds \n\nAnd yes, I dropped a bunch of decimal points.  Your original data was only to two significant digits....
713495
Wouldn't it depend on the size of your rocket?
709750
Big rocket on moon: Lots of reaction mass available, low escape velocity, no atmosphere to block the exhaust, and no greenies to complain about the noise and pollution. The moon is gravitationally bound to the earth, so if the moon is moved slowly and carefully enough, the earth will follow. Of course, we'll want to clean up the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars first. Great plan for solar main sequence survival.\n\nIn response to "addtional detail". For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That means the gravitational force on the moon due to earth's gravity is exactly the same as the force on the earth due to the moon, but in the opposite direction. Now, since the earth is more massive, that means its acceleration is proportionatly smaller. Since the moon's orbit is circular (at present), that means the acceleration is centripetal and the earth's center orbits in circle of small radius. \n\nThe extreme limit of how hard you can pull on the earth with a rocket on the moon would be if you brought the moon to a stop relative to the earth. The moon will then start falling toward the earth, and the earth toward the moon (though more slowly). However, if you oppose the gravitational force on the moon with rocket thrust of equal an opposite magnitude, plus a bit more to match the acceleration of the earth in both sign and direction, the earth-moon distance with stay the same, and the pair will accelerate together. Note that the rocket exhaust is now pointed towards the earth; this can be avoided by vectoring it off to the side slightly. This added acceleration can be used to accelerate earth in the direction of its motion around the sun. This would cause the earth's orbit to slowly spiral outward. As I said, this is the extreme limit of how hard you can pull (unless you bring the moon closer). In practicle, one need only perturb the moon's orbit to get an effect; it'll just take longer.\n\nYes, one would need a phenomenal energy source to accelerate lunar material for rocket exhaust. Thermonuclear fusion would be the best bet for this. That only requires extacting the naturally occuring deuterium from water. I haven't done the math, but all the earth's ocean's might suffice; deuterium is less than 1% of the hydrogen in water, so we'd hardly miss it. There's lots of water in the outer solar system too, if needed.
488798
Hi:\n\nNASA mostly use hydrogen and oxygen or tri-nictro-oxide in the liquid stages of their rockets and ammonium Nitric or some other solid state fuel that similar to gun cotton for the solid rocket booster. However in the early day of rocketry; they use any liquid fuel that would combined with liquid oxygen, Such gasoline,100 proof grain alcohol,Kerosene, fuel oil. and gunpowder or gun cotton for solid rockets Today however they mostly use hydrogen and oxygen for the liquid fuel rockets. What type of fuel they put into their rocket depend on how much weight their payload is; and how high they want it to go, and if they are visiting the planets in our solar system this as to be accounted for too.\n\nBack in the 1950,s and 1960's NASA had developed a Nuclear rocket engine under a project name: "Project Pluto" where liquid hydrogen was heated by a nuclear reactor to produce  a rocket thrust to propel a spacecraft in space. It fell out favor with the public due to radiation issues. There is a new type of rocket that uses ion propulsion where a gas such a hydrogen or Xenon gas is ionized and run ed through a series of electrically charge grids and are accelerated to very velocity as they exit the spacecraft And then there is:  The Antimatter and Matter rocket engine this where Matter and Antimatter is allow to mix in certain ratio in a rocket reactor vessel and focused by magnetic field to generate a lot of thrust
439425
You need to give more info, like fuel capacity, weight of rocket, length of fueled burst.
1035230
First of all, it depends on what you need the thruster for. Chemical rockets (solid, liquid, and hybrid) are the only ones with strong enough thrust to get off the Earth, but once you're in orbit even a low continuous thrust will get you where you want to go, if you have the time.\n\nChemical rockets combine fuel and oxidizer to create thrust. Liquid and solid fueled rockets are just what they sound like; hybrids use a solid fuel but a liquid oxidizer to to start and stop the burn. This helps to deal with one of the biggest problems with solid fuel rockets - once they're lit, they can't be shut off. A hybrid can be throttled off just by stopping the flow of oxidizer.\n\nHall effect and ion thrusters are a bit different. They use a fuel (typically a light gas, but there's a particular type that uses solid Teflon) that is ionized and then passed through a magnetic field to accelerate it to very high speeds. The drawback is that the acceleration is very low, so it can't be used to launch off the Earth. The plus is that you don't really need the high thrust of a chemical rocket in space - it just takes you longer to get anywhere. There was a British spacecraft that went from Earth orbit to the Moon using only ion thrusters; it took eighteen months!
377038
*Counting* spacecraft, the fastest man-made object (so far) is Helios 2, which got up around 150,000 mph.  That's still less than 1/4,000th of the speed of light, so we have a way to go.
218504
Minimum speed that a spacecraft has is always gerater than the escape velocity i.e. over 11 Km/Sec. This means you can reach to USA under 20 mins or so!
1023626
the science between the movement of a rocket ship is governed in the third law (i think). The law of action and reaction.\nactually the air acts as a friction. but in space the rocket will fly faster because space is frictionless, due to no air.\nthe flame coming out from its butt's side is opposite to where the rocket is moving.\nthe flame is going < < < = = = \nwhile the movement of the rocket is = = = > > >\nLaw of action and reaction.
1096154
use a pop bottle quarter fill wth water, and seal with a rubber cork(one with a hole in the middle this is where you put your compressor attachment)  add fins to your bottle just like a real rocket\n\nuse a half pipe as a ramp and angle it a 45 degrees ataach the compressor to the bottle and turn on.  when the air pressure gets high enough the cork will shoot out and the rocket will fly.  try different amounts of water and change the angle
542320
I would just recommend looking at a can and seeing what is the propellant.  We could guess all day, but as long as we don't work in a silly string factory we couldn't be absolute.  Alot of that kinf od informations i proprietary.  But how about this:\nPropellant\nSomething that dries fast (isopropyl)\nA plasticizer to keep the goo gooey\nsome other stuff
664808
The shuttle usually operates at an orbital altitude of between 200 and 350 miles (careful! NASA often uses nautical miles for shuttle statistics), depending on what the mission and payload requirements for the flight are. A circular orbit at these heights implies an orbital speed of about 17,000 miles per hour. If the orbit is elliptical, the speed will be slightly higher, but not by much.