Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Quadibloc <jsavard@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:16:11 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 22, 2:03 pm, Alain Fournier <alain...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well you either need to accelerate something with some sort of internal
propulsion system, or you need to have a catcher in orbit. You don't
want to be at 40 km altitude on your second pass.
That's why one only gets to replace rocket engines halfway - one needs
a burn at apogee to go into a proper orbit.
And that's why something like 25 miles or 40 km up is needed; that's
the altitude at which the V2 rocket levelled off in its flight, since
it was now useful to accelerate horizontally. Perhaps air resistance
is still too high to really permit this type of launch to orbit, but
this seems at least a ballpark figure of the height needed. The length
might be 400 miles or 650 km, which indeed is Gargantuan.
John Savard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- References:
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Quadibloc
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Len Lekx
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- From: Alain Fournier
- Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- Prev by Date: Re: WhiteKnightTwo Soars Over Mojave
- Next by Date: Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- Previous by thread: Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- Next by thread: Re: Can we now build the "space tower"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|