4 ms·
It would produce a lot of ozone probably, which is harmful to humans at ground level. But exactly what you want to put into the upper atmosphere as it protects
by j-pb 10y ago
It would produce a lot of ozone probably, which is harmful to humans at ground level. But exactly what you want to put into the upper atmosphere as it protects from harmful radiation, see ozone hole.
- goda90 10y agoUnfortunately it's not going to float up to the stratosphere from the troposphere, so a good portion of a flight will be causing ozone pollution.
- sp332 10y agoI thought most commercial flights were above 20km, where the bulk of the ozone layer is? Edit: Oh you mean the takeoff and landing parts of the flight. Good point.
- pmontra 10y agoCommercial flights are at about 10 km.
- Rooster61 10y agoI don't see this being much of an issue. Most aircraft kind of throw efficiency out the window while they are taking off/landing. You don't WANT overly aerodynamic wings at take off because you want exaggerated lift at the cost of drag. It wouldn't make sense to use the plasma until you are at a stage in the flight where you are more concerned about efficiency, i.e. cruising.
- hawski 10y agoIf they would succeed with "flapless" design it would be then different story. I was wondering if this technology would help with reusable rockets. But what you've wrote and what I found about aerodynamics of rockets makes me think that it would not be that helpful. [1] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/744/effect-of-atmospheric-drag-on-rocket-launches-and-benefits-of-high-altitude-laun https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/744/effect-of-atmo...
- Noseshine 10y agoMy question was more about other compounds, for example those involving fluorine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#Atmosphere). I have not asked about F specifically because that is known and in decline (I think), but there may be other things in the air that specialists know better.