Flying to the Moon

>>8447749
no, because the earth and the moon would quickly ignite against all that air because of friction travelling at several thousand km per second. also all that new air would generate weird gravitys, and also it could be ignited by the sun

>>8447749
Sure, but you'd have to fly in some kind of spiral since the plane would always be trying to go upwards wrt. the plane.

>>8447749

Yes, if there was air in space you could fly in it.

>>8447756
>>8447760
>>8447768
no

its not that simple
first youd have to have some kind of stable gravity
then a reason that the moon and earth travelling at tremendous speeds do not incinerate against all that mass of air, also a reason why all that air isnt ignited by the sun, also a reason why all that loose air doesnt clump over into a ball


if you can find an hypothetical scenario were all that works that doesnt break the laws of physics then maybe MAYBE it could be done

>>8447749
This is a retarded thread but all the aspies on sci want to look smart by shooting down every hypothetical with trash short winded and otherwise bad explinations, so yes. If there WAS air between the earth and the moon a turbo fan propulsion system would work just fine. Literally the one and only reason why turbo fans stop working is lack of fucking air.

I get all of you want to roleplay as Sheldon shitting on Penny for retarded questions but at least when you shoot it down try not to sound like a fucking pop sci Youtuber.

>lmao no even doe your hypothetical doesn't happen for many reasons if it did den mup da dooo didda da air wood be on fire cus frictions n sheit and da sun would lite da air on fire bciz da air would leavr da goldilocks zone and den da radiation belt would MELT DA AIR AND CRATE METAL AIR IONS AND EARTH WUD FREZE AND DEN NO MORE GLOOBEL WURAMING LMAO PLES SUBSRUB

>>8447749
Obvious inconsistencies aside, I think you're basically asking if you could fly a normal plane in an atmosphere at 0g.
The answer is yes, even if the wings are not optimized for that.
You have propulsion, flaps, wing control. That should be enough.

>>8447793
>a turbo fan propulsion system would work just fine
answer these>>8447773


this nigger at least realized there were obvious inconsistencies>>8447797

>>8447793
This but there would never be enough fuel to get there and it would probably take years.

>>8447802
>mup da do didda gibs me da gravity
Read: hypothetical
I think the question was more asking if you could control a plane in a fluid in low gravity more than "how do we create a scenario that there is significant amounts of air between the earth and moon", idiot.

Fuel is the only issue. Controls would work just fine and as long as the atmosphere is thick enough to compress properly then your jet will run just fine.

Who the fuck cares if it's not possible for the air to exist. Read the fucking OP,
"Suppose". Implying that it could physically happen and all of the mechanisms preventing it from happening were alleviated for the time being. Despite what you think /sci/ isn't a scientific think tank. It's a slightly mote controlled and foucused anime shitposting board with math neets. Get off your high horse.

>>8447815
but the thing is that when you are doing an hypothetical scenario you want the other variables to be plausible, or semi plausible, if not youre just making so many shit up that of course anything would be possible

with your elementary school tier way of thinking the questions boils down to:

"if an airplane could fly in space, could an airplane fly in space?"

File: jaja space junk.jpg (23KB, 401x459px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 401x459px

>>8447749
Secret spaceplane can.

>>8447773
I know this is foreign to you, but when you're not autistic you can actually realize the point of a question and restrict your answer to that point.

>>8447839
You can't be this cocky and autistic at the same time. Whenever you feel the impulse to autistic rage all over someone, just yell at the wall.
Your restatement of the question is even wrong, the question was basically how gravity affects airplanes.

>>8447911
>>8447905
"the point"
yes, the point is "if i modify everyting to fit an hypothetical situation, will it fit my hypothetical situation"

thats what it is unless youre adressing all of the myriad of problems that would exist.

for example, such vast quantities of air at this density over such big volumes would collide into each other because of gravity really quick

>>8447924
So when you get the "assume there is no drag" in physics lectures you promptly tell him all the implications of such a hypothetical situation? I rarely call people autistic but this seems autistic as fuck.

No
Not at all
There is a huge amount of drag at sea level flying

So you would get like
3000 miles and run out of gas.

>>8447951
yes, this too, airplanes go high on purpose to fly on the lower density air