Re: More Space Elevator news
From: Joe Strout (joe_at_strout.net)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Ool: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Previous message: Richard Lamb: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- In reply to: Richard Lamb: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Next in thread: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Reply: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:32:41 -0500
In article <40E1E64A.7408FC95@earthlink.net>,
Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Is that 62,000 mile figure a typo or intended?
It's intended (that's the approximate altitude of geosynchronous orbit).
> a 62 mile tower is probably not much of a moment problem
> (compared to 8000 mile planet diameter).
>
> But 62,000? There's a tail wagging the dog!
I'm not sure what a moment problem is, but a space elevator doesn't
violate any fundamental laws of physics. (But note that it's not really
a tower, i.e. a compression structure; it's in tension.)
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
- Next message: Ool: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Previous message: Richard Lamb: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- In reply to: Richard Lamb: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Next in thread: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Reply: Jorge R. Frank: "Re: More Space Elevator news"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|