what are the advancements of rockets ?
915489
well, they go up further after they have been lit
531134
Depending on the resources you have available you could do an experiement with rockets (small ones foudn at the store). With this you could measure the time in the air, distance traveled, speed would be difficult but you could get an average if you had the distance and time. And by changing the wieght/structure of the rockets would give you measurements on mass. You would have to keep the angle at which you launched them at a constant. (keep in mind the wind factor if out doors)\n\nOther wise if you are looking to only hit one of those topics I suggest testing the mass of objects using water displacement.
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."
707983
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
190039
Just watch a NASA space rocket take off. \n\nThe enegergy created to get a rocket off the ground and into space comes from the power generated by the controlled mixing (fusion reaction) of liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen.
78131
Right now there isn't much. The idea of nuclear power for spacecraft isn't too attractive, given the radiation, fallout, and potential mess after an accident. \n\nThe old chemical rockets have experienced an upgrade recently, thanks to the Russian technology of the closed cycle motor. The energy used to run the pumps used to be jettisoned outside the motor bell, but the Russians needed that extra bit of power for their N1 moon ship, and designed the NK33 closed cycle motor. Thankfully, some of the motors survived the cold war, and ended up in the hands of researchers who used them to construct the closed cycle motors that power the Atlas 5. The New Horizons spacecraft rode out on the Atlas 5, which was the fastest launch in history. The Apollo ships took three days to cover the distance between Earth and Moon; New Horizons did it in 9 hours. That's an improvement.
528635
Nanotechnology, currently, mostly has to do with materials science, via creating micro structures that can withstand extreme stresses in either longitudal (carbon nano-tubes) or rotational (bucky-balls) directions, and any connection to aerospace is merely a coincidental imagining of people who are dreaming up ways to use these new exotic materials for aerospace applications.  Nanotechnology, in essesnce, is 'building' materials (metals, plastics, polycarbonates) from the basic atomic/molecular structure up.\n\nCurrently the only applications that I have heard of are in relation to a surface to low earth orbit(LEO)'elevator' which would be used to hoist payloads from the surface to LEO.  This setup would be extremely fragile though and tend to break even with the current nano-materials available.  \n\nThe other area where it would be of interest and much more probably of use, is in the area of heat resistant applications such at heat shields for re-entering spacecraft.  Nano-materials can be engineered to be highly resistant to high temperatures without their material properties changing drastically.  This would be a far greater useablility than any sort of space elevator.
439425
You need to give more info, like fuel capacity, weight of rocket, length of fueled burst.
477827
All depends on how far you want the rocket to go and how much mass you want to get there. Missiles use rocket engines too; they don't need much fuel and are mostly solid fuelled.\n\nA standard Ariane 5 puts up 6.7 tonnes into geostationary orbit and uses two solid rocket boosters with 237.8 tonnes of solid fuel in, one main liquid fuel rocket engine burning 132.27 tonnes of liquid oxygen and 25.84 tonnes of liquid hydrogen and an upper stage burning 9.7 tonnes of Hydrazine / N2O2. Other slightly more powerful versions can put 9.6 tonnes into geostationary orbit.
448983
when you have complex machines, especially ones with rocket fuel, things on ocassion fail, they still do, rockets blow up every year. the trick is to minimize the failure through better design and materials and manufacturing. MIKE
519897
It depends on the fusing of the rocket and the resistance the window provides to penetration.  There are all types of rocket fuses and all types of windows, so a general answer isn't possible.\n\nNow you understand why researchers are always saying -"We need more data"!\n\n'Course - that also means more money!
438986
magnetic accelerators are cool projects\neasy to make!\nway cool stuff for the engineer waiting in you!\ndo a yahoo search for GUASS RIFLE.\nclick the first hit!\nMy Daughter and i made one that was 37 feet long and snapped a wood plank in two!\nhave fun and keep excelling in science and math!
817981
As others have said, it's all about speed. \n\nIt's a minor point really, but it's a common misconception that it is the friction with the air that causes objects hitting the Earth's atmosphere at high speed to heat up. Actually it's not friction. The heating up is caused by the fact that the air in front of the object cannot get out of the way fast enough, so it's gets compressed in front of the object. As the air gets compressed the pressure rises and as the pressure rises so does the temperature. This is what causes the burning up effect.\n\nWhen a space craft is blasting off into orbit, as its speed rises it's also gaining altitude. At higher altitudes the atmosphere is less dense, so this compression of the air in front of the space craft never becomes a problem.\n\nIf a space craft used its rockets to slow its decent back to Earth then it wouldn't have any problems with burning up on re-entry. The reason they don't do this is because of the weight of the fuel that would be needed to do it. With current technology, no spacecraft could carry that amount of fuel and still be able to get into orbit.
850520
animals, air craft, vehicles etc
739724
That balloon with camera thing is a little out-dated. We're just a "little" bit more sophisticated now. We have computer controlled Airial devices that can take pictures and show us areas we might not be able to get to. I'm sure the military is pretty much up to date on most modern technology.
908500
Manned space flight!\nThe multiple innovations that had to be overcome was tremendous and involved many different engineering fields.\nThink of all the systems that have to work exactly so that man could make it to the moon?\nHey how about the millions of parts that have to work for the space shuttle!
10042
The following technologies require further research:\n\nMagnetic sails\nMini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion\nNuclear pulse propulsion (Orion drive)\nGas core reactor rocket\nAntimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion\nNuclear salt-water rocket\nBeam-powered propulsion\nFission sail \nFission-fragment rocket\nNuclear photonic rocket\n\nThe following technologies are significantly beyond current engineering:\n\nFusion rocket\nBussard ramjet\nAntimatter rocket\nRedshift rocket