Re: Space Elevator
- From: "Brian Gaff" <briang1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:54:14 GMT
This topic keeps on coming back again. A mere simple look at how orbital
mechanics work, would suggest that in order to keep the 'top' of the
elevator in orbit, a balancing mass going up from the orbit would be
required due to the orbit being calculated at the centre of the mass. If you
are changing this, as you would be with an elevator, then having it lop
sided in this way will simply destroy the orbit your target or top is at.
Brian trying to keep it simple, as this matches his brain.
--
Brian Gaff - briang1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XjDkh.3720$pQ3.3685@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"daedalus" <daedalus1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jxykh.192320$Pk.72264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At 10 metres per second, which is a reasonably fast pace vertically, it
will
take 46 days to climb a Space Elevator to geostationary orbit. Has anyone
considered the amount of consumables needed to accompany any crew on such
a
journey?
Gee... let's see. Umm yeah I think we just went through this.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Space Elevator
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Space Elevator
- References:
- Space Elevator
- From: daedalus
- Re: Space Elevator
- From: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
- Space Elevator
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Elevator
- Next by Date: Re: COSMIC DUST
- Previous by thread: Re: Space Elevator
- Next by thread: Re: Space Elevator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|