Jump to content

Space Elevator


willedoo

Recommended Posts

I guess you'd have to glide away from it a bit. You wouldn't want to keep bumping into it for the next 20 klm on the way down.

 

All you'd need is a HA helmet, partial pressure suit, O2 supply, and away you go.

 

Edit: and a parachute.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you'd have to glide away from it a bit. You wouldn't want to keep bumping into it for the next 20 klm on the way down.

 

All you'd need is a HA helmet, partial pressure suit, O2 supply, and away you go.

 

Edit: and a parachute.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember the exact altitude for blood boiling and skin swelling; I thought it was around 63,000'. So if it was, how long would it take to freefall 2,000' at that pressure. Maybe you could get away without partial pressure gear if you dropped to that height quick enough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't remember the exact altitude for blood boiling and skin swelling; I thought it was around 63,000'. So if it was, how long would it take to freefall 2,000' at that pressure. Maybe you could get away without partial pressure gear if you dropped to that height quick enough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea. Basically a conga line of gas balloons stacked on top of each other. I can't begin to imagine the forces that would come into play on something that tall - in fact you'd have forces acting in pretty much every direction on different parts of the structure at the same time. Would have to be sited on the equator I guess, same as Arthur C Clarke's skyhooks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting idea. Basically a conga line of gas balloons stacked on top of each other. I can't begin to imagine the forces that would come into play on something that tall - in fact you'd have forces acting in pretty much every direction on different parts of the structure at the same time. Would have to be sited on the equator I guess, same as Arthur C Clarke's skyhooks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have to be sited on the equator I guess,

Why? Because of the direction of rotation? just curious. why not say the north or south pole, where it would rotate in line with the earth's axis, not travel perpendicular to it.

 

I find these sorts of questions fascinating, but am not equipped to answer them!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have to be sited on the equator I guess,

Why? Because of the direction of rotation? just curious. why not say the north or south pole, where it would rotate in line with the earth's axis, not travel perpendicular to it.

 

I find these sorts of questions fascinating, but am not equipped to answer them!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need about 22,000 MPH to escape gravity. If you take off in an easterly direction at the equator you already have 1,000 MPH. It pays to get up out of the atmosphere to benefit from it. Nev

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need about 22,000 MPH to escape gravity. If you take off in an easterly direction at the equator you already have 1,000 MPH. It pays to get up out of the atmosphere to benefit from it. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Because of the direction of rotation? just curious. why not say the north or south pole, where it would rotate in line with the earth's axis, not travel perpendicular to it.I find these sorts of questions fascinating, but am not equipped to answer them!

Neither am I, but I also find them fascinating.

 

As Nev said you get that extra kick in the pants from rotation at the equator, whereas at the poles you get nothing... plus imagine the added difficulty in building the damn thing at the poles!

 

I can't remember all the reasons Clarke gave for siting his towers at the equator, but I remember it made sense at the time.

 

Hey also the Earth is not a pure sphere but bulges at the equator, so you get a head start with height!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Because of the direction of rotation? just curious. why not say the north or south pole, where it would rotate in line with the earth's axis, not travel perpendicular to it.I find these sorts of questions fascinating, but am not equipped to answer them!

Neither am I, but I also find them fascinating.

 

As Nev said you get that extra kick in the pants from rotation at the equator, whereas at the poles you get nothing... plus imagine the added difficulty in building the damn thing at the poles!

 

I can't remember all the reasons Clarke gave for siting his towers at the equator, but I remember it made sense at the time.

 

Hey also the Earth is not a pure sphere but bulges at the equator, so you get a head start with height!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...