|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mikko wrote: But 30,000ft and, say, 600mph isn't much of a boost. It's a long, long, long way from orbit. The difficulty of getting to orbit is better described by "17500 miles per hour" than any figure of altitude. Why is that speed needed? Because that's orbital velocity in low-Earth orbit. Any slower than that, and you're falling to the ground. Only thing I can think is, that since earths gravity effects the craft whole time, the longer it takes, the more gravity will "drag back" the craft? Hmm, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Here's another way: gravity is pulling you toward the ground at (roughly) 9.8 m/sec. But the Earth is also round; if you are moving forward fast enough, then by the time you fall to the Earth, it's no longer there -- it's curved away and is now behind you a bit. At 17500 mph or so, you're moving so fast, that the Earth is *always* behind you; you're going around it as fast as you are falling towards it. Hmm, I think that was a lousy explanation. Surf the web a bit and I bet you'll find better ones. In pithy form: orbiting is the trick of falling towards the ground and missing. But also gravity gets smaller when you get more away from the earth? Yes, but not for a LONG way. You can pretty safely ignore that effect. How high does one have to go to have only half of gravity? Well, gravity (like pretty much anything else, due to basic geometry) falls off with the square of the distance. So you can write g2/g1 = (r1/r2)^2. The radius of the earth is 6400 km; call that r1, and you want the r2 where g2/g1 is 0.5. 0.5 = (6400/r2)^2, do the algebra, r2 comes to about 9100 km, or about 2700 km altitude. So this decrease of gravity with altitude isn't much help in reaching orbit. What if someone built a 30,000 ft high tube, similar to magnetic trains - electrical magnets around it. Then you could just put metallic cargo inside - without any engine or fuel, and shoot it up. The tube would have to be high enough that there is no air where the cargo comes out, and maybe part of the tube would have to be a vacuum. Yes, this has been explored before (it's generally called a mass driver -- try a google search). It would be a massive engineering project, probably more so than you realize, if you want to be able to launch anything other than bulk materials like water. You'd need a barrel length of over 50 km to keep the acceleration tolerable for humans (say, 2 Gs or so). Propably not something to do today, but still lot shorter than the "space-lift", and it would give near 100 % payload. By "space-lift" I assume you mean a space elevator. Yes, it's dramatically shorter than that, but has a number of additional operational complications, like keeping the thing up in the sky and getting your payloads to and from it. It also doesn't help much with getting stuff back down, which is itself a rather hard problem. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When will we be able to afford space settlement? | Dez Akin | Policy | 210 | May 23rd 11 03:23 AM |
Rogere Chaffee-U2 photos for Kennedy? | Bill | History | 5 | October 21st 04 04:00 AM |
First African-American In Space Marks 20th Anniversary Of Flight | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 15 | January 10th 04 01:31 AM |
First African-American In Space Marks 20th Anniversary Of Flight | Ron Baalke | History | 18 | January 10th 04 01:31 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |