This idea is related to centrifugal and centripetal forces;a marble will fly off a turntable but a tonearm will seek the center.It is also related to what happens to a movie reel when itis all taken up. (The film levitates at a tangent)These are analogies for gravity and (uh oh:) antigravityin the idea. All are related to angular momentum. I am nota physics expert or rocket scientist so enough of that.
The idea has to do with the 90 minute orbit around theearth and the one day orbit we all experience on thesurface. The idea is a bridge between them. It will look like a normal bridge but the altitude of the roadwill increase an incredible amount, and a space stationwould be built at the end, at the 90 minute orbit.
Now I've done experiments but not math, leave that tothe rocket scientists. This is very weird. The bridgemight levitate retrograde due to the high speed of the90 minute orbit. The bridge would be incredibly engineeredand strained, I think. It might not be too long, perhapsyou could "drive" to space in a day at 150km/h. (Again,I forgot the calculator.) My experiments do show orbitsbetween centrifugal and centripetal forces suggesting thisis possible.
Actually, the Tower of Babel story suggests something likeit is possible. Hopefully so, and God would allow it inthis age. Forgetting that, can anyone analyze the effecton gravity on this system and come up with a solution?
Perhaps it is much more reasonable than a 30,000 km verticalrope to geosynchronous orbit! The rope's weight would pullthe satellite out of the sky, I think.
oops, a mistake. Geosynchronous (one day)orbit is 30,000 km up,and gravity is keeping us from flying off earth. But I stillassume the possibilty of a tense 90 minute orbit (either east-ward or westward I am not sure) which is horizontal.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
This sounds something like the proposed space elevator hich is being worked on now, although the construction materials have yet to be devised.
Search Google for space elevator (600k returns). Add Clarke to the search for historical background. Check Amaxon.com for "Fountains of Paradise" by Arthur C. Clark for early (1950's) development.
Once I was able to picture it, I liked the idea. "Bridge to Space" sums it up more appropriately than I at first thought.
The use of satellites orbiting too quickly for their altitude makes an odd sort of sense. The biggest obstacles I see are in construction; I think the materials needed to keep the bridge hanging in the sky are already here.
A lesser problem lies in where you'll locate the base of the object. It would have to be at the equator, with all of the international politcs that implies.
You might add a hurricane or a tornado to your calculations.
Rather than putting the base at the equator, wouldn't it be better to have it at either the north or south pole? That way rotation of the earth wouldn't be such a factor.
More recent thoughts on the space bridge: It would work for launching rockets (or winning X prizes with a parachute) but not for landings. The poles are not very convenient locations, and it does not seem to me to have any advantage to build there. The bridge is supposed to be somewhat horizontal, like a road, not an elevator, and not much following the curve of the earth. Maybe Brazil or Polynesia; not enough people in Antarctica to build it.
a bridge to space, the idea as it stands now.. has more to deal with the post implimentation hazards and testing carbon nanotubes for their strength to withstand the enormous strain(a 90 minute orbit, u say.. it needs to go at a very high speed),weight and the tidal forces due to the altitude(difference in 'g' basically).and even if u do satisfy all these.. is it economical enough to replace the present day satellites,,,... is another question..
I often think of possible negative outcomes to ideas - one that occurred to me is would this effect the Earth's rotation? Possibly shift its axis? If so, should an opposing elevator be built on the opposite side of the globe?
The space elevator must be tied to a satellite in synchronous orbit. A synchronous orbit is not possible at the poles as the satellite must revolve around the Earth at the same velocity as the ground underneath. At the poles there is no movement around the Earth so an object cannot be in orbit and stationary over a pole.
Physically impossible. There are no materials strong enough to support that base, it would crush itself. If you tried to use dirt, you would end up shifting half of the Earth to make your mountain. Even if you did have the materials, it would depress the tectonic plate beneath it's foundation, possibly cracking the bedrock down to the mantle, releasing lava flows.
"Actually, the Tower of Babel story suggests something like it is possible." No, it doesn't. But your thinking it does suggests that we haven't made much improvment in common understandings of physics.
I don't understand how you could tie an object orbiting in 90 minutes to the Earth's surface which is turning every 24 hours. Wouldn't the orbiter be dragged out of the sky immediately?