do you think its possible to fly a jet in space?

i mean if you equpied it with the correct matirels for space travel people could sart to make. starships and fighters, for space war. just a thought what do you think

No cause jet engines need air.......space= near perfect vacum = no air = no engine go.

^^ devilswasp, I don't think the the question was intended in that manner..I think t poster was asking whether we will see independant units in space which are of the size of fighters and that will perform the same role...

My speculation:

Near Future: closest thing to units of that size is autonomous construction worker bees; warfare in space if any will be limited to orbital delivery platforms.

Distant future: who knows..!!

oh...heh......sorry about that....heh.......** looks down feeling like a jack ass.....***
I think we will cause we cant just stay in our ships and shoot each other all days, you still need smaller fighters to attack ground and space ships close in.

And your planning on us having space wars with who exactly???

Originally posted by MickeyDee
And your planning on us having space wars with who exactly???

With each other as with all fields of combat , we will just move to space claiming areas and planets for ourselves.

Originally posted by devilwasp
With each other

as with all fields of combat , we will just move to space claiming areas and planets for ourselves.

You say that as if it were a bad thing! That would mean that insane amounts of money spent on space technology and the invention of new space weapons and propulsion systems . It would be the dawn of a new space age. How bad can war be if we fight in space? It can't be much worse than that we have on land can it. Also all the destruction would be isolated in space and civilians would be safer.

The space shuttle is a jet, and there was an experimental jet that also technically reached space.

Do you know the name of the jet or the name of the operation it was involved in? I read about that same experiment but don't recall where I read it.

Originally posted by davidluth
Do you know the name of the jet or the name of the operation it was involved in? I read about that same experiment but don't recall where I read it.

Are you referring to the X prize competition that was won last year?

www.xprize.org...

Originally posted by IAF101
You say that as if it were a bad thing! That would mean that insane amounts of money spent on space technology and the invention of new space weapons and propulsion systems . It would be the dawn of a new space age. How bad can war be if we fight in space? It can't be much worse than that we have on land can it. Also all the destruction would be isolated in space and civilians would be safer.

...War does bring invention, but why must we fovus on new ways to kill each other?
Why cant we just forget the past sins and get our act together.

I'm thinking of the plane chuck yeager flew, the 'x-15'.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm thinking of the plane chuck yeager flew, the 'x-15'.

The X-15 was powered by rockets, as is the space shuttle. Also, I don't beleive Yeager ever flew the X-15. He did fly the X-1 (another rocket powered plane).

Nygdan, the space shuttle is not a jet, it is powered by rockets. Jets do not fly into space because they are air breathing engines, and there is no air to support combustion.

Rockets bring their own oxygen with them, either in the form of liquid oxygen or in an oxygen-bearing compounds like "IRFNA" (inhibited red fuming nitric acid).

Chuck Yeager did not fly the X-15, he flew the X-1. However, neither of those were jets either; they were both rocket aircraft.

Edited to say:

Dang, Starwars, you beat me to the punch AGAIN!

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]

The World record for both speed and height by an air-breathing aircraft (not a rocket) was 85,135 feet. It was set in an SR-71 Blackbird in 1976.

The speed record is also held by an SR-71, at 2,193 mph. This is not as high or as fast as the airplane can fly, however, it's absolute speed and altitude limits are classified. Most US military aircraft can exceed 50,000 feet, if they really really try. Again, the limits are classified. Most commercial jetliners cruise somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000 feet above mean sea level. At higher speeds and altitudes, there isn't enough oxygen in the air to continuously burn the jet fuel required to stay up there. Engines designed to work very well that high, have serious limitations when they are operated closer to the surface. There are aircraft that have flown higher and faster (the X-15) but they really aren't aircraft, they are rockets, because they carry their own source of oxygen, instead of using the air. However, the fastest and highest airplanes are the American SR-71 Blackbirds.

At those high altitudes, I would also suspect that the wing lift and the effectiveness of the control surfaces would be somewhat compromised by the low air pressure.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Ah, I see. the shuttle's not a jet. I wasn't thinking was I?

mea culpa

Jets are not able to fly into the space, but maybe in the future we will see jet/ramjet engines on first stage of the new shuttles. Their are much more economical in low altitutes (up to 30 km, especialy when starting horizontaly.

Originally posted by longbow
Jets are not able to fly into the space, but maybe in the future we will see jet/ramjet engines on first stage of the new shuttles. Their are much more economical in low altitutes (up to 30 km, especialy when starting horizontaly.

This is already being tried. Although the size of the jet required for large payloads make this approach uneconomical for large payloads, small payloads are routinely carried into orbit by a Pegasus rocket. This is basically a Minuteman III lower stage with a new 3-4 stage.

www.orbital.com...
www.vandenberg.af.mil...
www.vandenberg.af.mil...

The definition of "jet" is the same a that of a "jet engine" which essentially an air-breathing device..
The minuteman examples mentioned above will have a ramjet "phase" which can only be worked in the atmosphere..hence they are not using the jet engine in space..
Although there is a theory of using "breathing" devices in space for inter-planetary travel and maybe even interstellar travel as a means of a self-sufficient propulsion system.. google for "ramscoop", "hydrogen scoop" etc..

As for actual fighters in space as opposed to orbital attack/defence platforms in the near future(50 years)..
IMO the latter is a clear winner in terms of cost of building and maintenance; Also it is just as effective as fighters..
I can back up my opinions with valid points if anyone wants to know..

You say that as if it were a bad thing! That would mean that insane amounts of money spent on space technology and the invention of new space weapons and propulsion systems . It would be the dawn of a new space age. How bad can war be if we fight in space? It can't be much worse than that we have on land can it. Also all the destruction would be isolated in space and civilians would be safer.

Large amounts of debris in space (especially in orbit), would cause space to be unuseable for decades at the least and centuries at most.