willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 A Canadian company has patented a 65,000' tower and elevator to launch vehicles into space. Not sure how they'd build something like that. http://www.rt.com/news/312607-space-elevator-canada-tower/
willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 A Canadian company has patented a 65,000' tower and elevator to launch vehicles into space. Not sure how they'd build something like that. http://www.rt.com/news/312607-space-elevator-canada-tower/
willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 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.
willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 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.
willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 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.
willedoo Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 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.
Marty_d Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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.
Marty_d Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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.
ayavner Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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!
ayavner Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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!
robinsm Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Arthur C Clarke eat your heart out....he wrote a book about this quite a long time ago ...called "the fountains of Paradise"... 1
robinsm Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Arthur C Clarke eat your heart out....he wrote a book about this quite a long time ago ...called "the fountains of Paradise"...
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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 1
facthunter Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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
PA. Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 If you take off in an easterly direction at the equator you already have 1,000 MPH. I tried that line with the traffic cop but he wouldn't buy it. 4
PA. Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 If you take off in an easterly direction at the equator you already have 1,000 MPH. I tried that line with the traffic cop but he wouldn't buy it.
Marty_d Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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!
Marty_d Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 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!
ayavner Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 haha plus i can just imagine a rotating runway... " XYZ downwind, runway 29 for a full stop. Oops make that 30. sorry... 31.. bugger..." 1
ayavner Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 haha plus i can just imagine a rotating runway... " XYZ downwind, runway 29 for a full stop. Oops make that 30. sorry... 31.. bugger..."
dazza 38 Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 Having previously worked in High Rise Construction for 13 years. All I am thinking of is what would the height and site allowance be? $$$$ 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now