RE: RE: [FT] Orbit and FT ( + added trivia)

FWIW,

As a bit of trivia (and not directed at the original point of this
thread),
the Harrier would only be able to sustain a hover over the pole (or any
other spot) for a few seconds.	Under a minute, max.

The heat generated by the Harrier's engine is extreme while hovering
(and
not having high-speed airflow to cool it down - as it has while the
aircraft is in flight), so it uses water injection to help stop things
from
overheating (and melting).  The water tank on a Harrier is relatively
small, and allows a very limited hover duration.

>>Just look at the Harrier II...
>
>Perfect example of what my point was MEANT to be - not that
thrust/guidance 
>technology is not yet capable (It IS, I agree), but that energy
efficiency 
>technology is not yet capable of sustaining it for long.  Take said
Harrier, 
>and hold it in place.	Now hold it there for a long time.  How long
will 
>it's tanks hold out?  Not as long as it would if the then converted it
into 
>forward flight.  It's a fuel issue, not  a thrust/precision issue.