"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

The problem is, the required orbital velocity is based on the spacecraft's
distance *from the center of the orbital body*, not its distance above the
surface. So the difference is just 30 FPS between orbits 10 NM high and
1000
feet high.

And, in fact, the orbital velocity decreases with increased
altitude...but, of
course, you have to burn fuel to get to the altitude.

The 5000 FPS was for a ballistic case, not an orbit. I brute-forced this
one to
determine the velocity needed...I used an orbit with a 10 nm apogee and
pushed
the perigee below the surface until I had an orbit where the above-ground
portion was approximately 2,000 NM long (it really, REALLY helps to write
your
own orbit analysis programs).

When I took physics out at the 'Dub, orbits hadn't even been invented yet. I
can barely remember attending, much less any of the course content. I'll
leave the calculations to the specialists.

From a layman's point of view, it appears as though powered flight on our
Moon should require *less* power than on Earth. If your linen bag of termite
chow can fly in a one-G field on forty horsepower while beating aside air,
smog, clouds, bugs and rain, then our moonflitter should be able to paddle
along in one-sixth G under a lot less power. If you can carry fuel to go for
your hamburger on Earth, then what's the problem out there (other than a
scarcity of Mickey D's)? Absence of air should be an advantage in some ways.

Riddle me that, O Caped Crusader!