How much thrust power the world's most powerful rocket can deliver?
480645
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.
512134
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.
12308
ICBM can deliver any weapon, as long as it fits into its payload bay and is within ICBM's weight capacity.\n\nThey've been using ICBM's to launch sattelites, now that cold war is over.
649863
ok..lets start\n\njet. power to lift off, cruise, and land with power.\n     highest alt is aprox 42000 ft.\n\nshuttle. no power to lift off, orbit or cruise, and land\n        without power (glide, no power)\n        it uses rockets for lift off, and burns off the rest\n        of its fuel for landing(deorbit), the rest of the \n       operation is glidding.\n        max altitue. aprox 200 miles.\n\n     hope it helps
590301
The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today.  The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken. \n     It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines.  These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships.  Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.\n\n     The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98".  Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower.  Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.\n\n     Some facts on the 14 cylinder version: \n Total engine weight: 2300 tons  (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.) \n Length: 89 feet \n Height: 44 feet \n Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm  \n Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm  \n\n     Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption).  Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour.  At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency.  That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.\n     For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.\n\n     Even at it's most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.
146292
11.2 km/s with the following caveats:\n\n"Due to the atmosphere it is not useful and hardly possible to give an object near the surface of the Earth a speed of 11.2 km/s, as these speeds are too far in the hypersonic regime for most practical propulsion systems and would cause most objects to burn up due to atmospheric friction. For an actual escape orbit a spacecraft is first placed in low Earth orbit and then accelerated to the escape velocity at that altitude, which is a little less, ca. 10.9 km/s. The required extra velocity, however, is less because the spacecraft has already been accelerated to about 8 km/s."
1144646
Stronger in terms of physical power:\n\n\nS P I D E R M A N
131134
"SATURN V: AMERICA'S MOON ROCKET"\nhttp://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/SpaceRace/sec300/sec384.htm\n\n"The three-stage Saturn V was taller [363 feet] than a 36-story building. It was the largest, most powerful rocket ever launched."
447400
On October 15, 1997 in Black Rock Desert, USA - Andy Green of the United Kingdom drove the vehicle ThrustSSC - which was powered by the Turbofan, hit a speed of 763.035 MPH over 1 mile.
1143842
Not without a major change in design.  Shipping 50 times the fuel will not give you 50 times the delta-V with a chemical rocket, it will be much, much lower than that, I believe for typical efficiencies, 50* the fuel will get you 4* the delta-V.\n\nTo go much faster you need to increase the specific impulse of the engine, which amounts to increasing the speed at which material leaves the nozzle.  A chemical rocket is limited by how hot it can make the expanding gas.  A nuclear rocket works well because it makes hot hydrogen, which has a higher nozzle velocity at a given temperature than hot water or carbon dioxide.  To go beyond those impulses to very high speeds, non-thermal systems like ion drives are more plausible, but they do not generate very much thrust.
647302
Thrust is the reactive force that is exerted by a rocket, propellar, or jet engine, which propels a craft.
561888
Thrust in avionics terms is the same as horse power for a car or truck. It is how much power a jet engine can produce. Drag is things that can limit velocity. A plane need to be sleek to be efficient. when a plane has its landing gear down there is more air resistance, or drag.
361150
a good resource:\nhttp://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page\nit links to everywhere that is Orbiter related\n\nespecially useful one:\nhttp://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Orbiter_tutorials\n\nTo launch rocket, just keep pressing + buttn for max power, or use the Ctrl+[+] to make the power increased slowly, and permanent. Then when the plane reaches a certain speed, press the down button.
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!
131186
If you mean a V-2 rocket then:\n\nDimensions:\n\nLength   14.036 m\nLength of the nose  2.285 m\nLength of the vanes 3.935 m\n\nSection of the fuselage  1.650 m\nSection of the vanes 3.555 m\n\nmore values (weight, speed) are included in the first link
325229
Although it is possible, It would take a lot of effort and materials to do this. There is also the chance the rocket could fail and could even explode in midair, and I don't think we want to see that.\n\nThere could be a better but similar plan though.
1125346
The world's most powerful super-computer.