Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Rigorous Science

How to alter the atmosphere as to make aerospace engines highly volatile?

+0
−0

When thinking about a potential answer to this question about preventing flight in a cyberpunk dystopia, I had an idea that I do no possess sufficient knowledge to prove/disprove.
 Thus you'll be treated to a new question:

Q: In what ways would the atmosphere have to be altered in order to make aircraft & rockets of current-design endangered by semi-/pseudorandom reactions of their propulsive means with the atmosphere?

I am imagining that making the atmosphere (simply) more reactive might already be enough, but I am at a loss regarding the physics/biology behind that.

As a bonus it would be nice to details how this altered atmosphere would affect human physiology (e.g. burn their skin?), but this is not the main concern of the question and might as well be asked separately at a later point in time.


Clarifications: This question is not necessarily asking about the steps that would have t be taken to introduce such a change; thus handwaving the changes themselves is absolutely acceptable, as long as the end-product again is rock solid.


Addendum: After reading an answer stating some good ideas but badouthing them in the next sentence as they would kill people; well if it kills humans it kills humans, can't always have your cake AND eat it too.

Answers will be rated on
 a) their thoroughness (the more sciency they are, the better)
 b) their impact on other areas of life (the less impact, the better)

E.g.: An answer killing off all humans will be less valuable than one only making them dead sick.


This question is different from this one insofar that the referenced question is about (spotaneously) combusting the atmosphere; while this question is about making engines of current-design aircraft, rockets, etc. behave irrationally/unpredictaby.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/66097. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

0 answers

Sign up to answer this question »