|
|
|
|
|
by PaulHoule
739 days ago
|
|
A positive way of framing it is that atmospheric recently is free. If the Earth didn’t have an atmosphere it would take just as big a velocity change to land as it does to get into orbit and getting to be orbit would be as hard as an interplanetary flight. It's worse than it sounds because the rocket equation has a logarithm in it... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation double the Δv means you square the mass ratio. The space shuttle had a mass ratio of about 16, a mass ratio of 256 would be absolutely insane. You get this velocity change at the cost of dealing with the heat and all but a tiny fraction of that heat ends up immediately in the atmosphere. |
|
There's enough energy in a Tesla battery to for the Tesla to reach escape velocity. If you could simply drive at max acceleration (and the car didn't fall apart, and the tires continued to have grip, and a million other reasons why this is impossible) eventually you'd reach escape velocity and still have some percentage left.
In a more realistic sense, a long railgun type system would be very practical in a no-atmosphere environment, and then not being subject to the tyranny of the rocket equation, you could launch whatever you wanted. Enough fuel to decelerate is no problem.