|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
Build a tower 15 miles high? Umm, please correct me if im wrong, but this
is not possible using current materials technology. Concrete/steel/titanium construction will only get you up to about 8 miles, and then you would have to be satisfied with a zero-weight loading at the top of a significantly tapered structure. Base something like 5 miles wide for the 8 mile high structure! Not to mention that such a construction project would be a bit....pricey. I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that an 8 mile high tower doesn't need to be a solid structure. You could have a 5 mile wide base with lots of space between the supports. The rest of the effort would be to get the scram jet to fly at lower altitudes to meet the tower half-way. It also helps if the base of the tower starts at 2 miles above sea level. Mount Everest is 5 miles high, one might build a maglev track up its slope, that would be cheaper than building an 8-mile high tower and it would bring jobs to the local Nepalese economy. Tom |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
We are not even up to half a mile and for very obvious reasons - there is
utterly no need for such. I mean - gosh, what the heck would you use all that space for? Launching a scramjet. The tower would exist solely to launch the scramjet, there would be no offices, and no multiple elevators to stop at the midlevels. The only people to stop their would be the maintenence crew. Most people would be interested in ascending to the top as quickly as possibly. If the load is too much for the scramjet to bear, it can be encase in a heat shield until it ascends to sufficient altitude after leaving the track and then ejected so that it can operate in thinner air. The initial speed would have to be fast enough so that its still moving at sufficient velocity when the appropriate altitude is reached. Tom |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
How would you overcome wind and gravity?
Eric Inertia. Make sure the object leaves the track at sufficient velocity such that, accounting for wind resistance and gravity, it is still traveling at high enough velocity when the right altitude is reached for the scramjet to operate. Tom |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rule Britannia! ( 90,000 ft tall...)
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ...
And a mile being 52x0 feet ( forget the value of x, but it was not 0), its not even exactly 17 miles. http://www.google.com/search?q=90,000ft+in+mi But here's my suggestion: http://www.google.com/search?q=90,000ft+in+km -- __ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __ ('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.” '__`) //6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\ `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/' |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hypersonics Overhype
You might find that there aren't any suitable locations to build such
a beast. For example, you might find the right mountain, but it may be located in an area that's largely inaccessible. This discussion is pointless anyway. In the near term, this doesn't do anything for *cheap* access to space. Jeff I have a cousin who spent some time in Nepal in the shadow of Mount Everest, he got there, so it is accessible. Tom |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
On 2 Apr 2004 21:19:11 +0200, in a place far, far away, Marvin
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: There is a very sound reason why mountains on earth are limited in height. Yes, and it has nothing to do with compressive strength. Artificial materials, having compressive strengths many times more than rock, can build a more slender building. What materials have compressive strength many times more than rock? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
TKalbfus wrote:
Build a tower 15 miles high? Umm, please correct me if im wrong, but this is not possible using current materials technology. Concrete/steel/titanium construction will only get you up to about 8 miles, and then you would have to be satisfied with a zero-weight loading at the top of a significantly tapered structure. Base something like 5 miles wide for the 8 mile high structure! Not to mention that such a construction project would be a bit....pricey. I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that an 8 mile high tower doesn't need to be a solid structure. You could have a 5 mile wide base with This does not help signifcantly with the problem at hand. lots of space between the supports. The rest of the effort would be to get the It would make more sense to have the upper parts look like this. The higher you are the more youwant it to be both lightweight and resistant to wind. scram jet to fly at lower altitudes to meet the tower half-way. It also helps if the base of the tower starts at 2 miles above sea level. Mount Everest is 5 miles high, one might build a maglev track up its slope, that would be cheaper than building an 8-mile high tower and it would bring jobs to the local Nepalese economy. Ha ha ha ha ha. So not only do you want to build a two orders of magnitude higher building than has been built before, you also want to build it in an inpossibly remote place with incredibly large logistics problems not to mention no local materials or workforce for it. Tom -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
TKalbfus wrote: I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that an 8 mile high tower doesn't need to be a solid structure. You could have a 5 mile wide base with lots of space between the supports. The rest of the effort would be to get the scram jet to fly at lower altitudes to meet the tower half-way. It also helps if the base of the tower starts at 2 miles above sea level. Mount Everest is 5 miles high, one might build a maglev track up its slope, that would be cheaper than building an 8-mile high tower and it would bring jobs to the local Nepalese economy. You ever see "Murder On The Orient Express" where the train gets stuck due to an avalanche on the tracks? Okay, now our scramjet Orient Express is going up the side of Mount Everest when the sound of its acceleration startles a Yeti searching for the bodies of frozen climbers on the mountain's summit (this being the Everest Yeti's current primary food source; having completely replaced the rich supply of Tibetan Buddhist monks that were its staple before the Chinese arrived, and whose prayer wheels made such amusing toys for Yeti young), which then trips over one of the 800 or so National Geographic Society flags that cover the mountain top like a forest- the Yeti falls, dislodging that dread _first snowflake_....which common knowledge assures us must inevitably lead to an immense avalanche.... an avalanche which then engulfs the launch track as the scramjet ascends. We now cut to the scene of the gleeful Yeti as it jumps up and down in delight at the fireworks show above it, and the rain of human body parts descending from the sky like heavenly manna into the snow around it. Pat :-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
90,000 ft tall vertical maglev-scramjet launch tower
TKalbfus ) wrote:
: How would you overcome wind and gravity? : : Eric : : Inertia. Make sure the object leaves the track at sufficient velocity such : that, accounting for wind resistance and gravity, it is still traveling at high : enough velocity when the right altitude is reached for the scramjet to operate. No, the wind and gravity are questions about the structure not the ramjet. Eric : Tom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hypersonics Overhype | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 42 | April 9th 04 04:54 AM |
Hypersonics Overhype | Rand Simberg | Policy | 46 | April 9th 04 04:54 AM |