If you could build a ladder tall enough
Discussion
It's no different to climbing a BIG hill. Provided you can apply power you can keep climbing.
I always liken it to riding a bicycle. Normally, to get top the top of a hill, the cyclist has to keep peddling all the way. However, if he could peddle so hard that he could achieve 25,000 mph, he could freewheel all the way to the top of the hill - and of course, - keep going when he got to the top, on into orbit around the sun.
I always liken it to riding a bicycle. Normally, to get top the top of a hill, the cyclist has to keep peddling all the way. However, if he could peddle so hard that he could achieve 25,000 mph, he could freewheel all the way to the top of the hill - and of course, - keep going when he got to the top, on into orbit around the sun.
threespires said:
Or how about doing it the other way round, drop a rope from the ISS & haul people up?
Don't forget that the ISS is belting around the earth at 17,500 moh. I wouldn't like to get smacked in the chops by a 200 mile long cable dangling from it.The idea of a cable suspended from an object in orbit has been around for quite a while (at least 60 years).
I am a bit dubious about any of these "cable" type solution. In theory, something like this might be feasible (usually referred to as a "Space Elevator"). However, even if we could make a material that could withstand the stresses and weight, there is still a lot we don't really know about how such "connections" would behave - particularly in their interaction with the upper atmosphere. In particular, there is the question of electrostatic forces that would no doubt build up and would have to be discharged somehow.
NASA did try some experiments from the Space Shuttle where they paid out long cables from the Shuttle cargo bay so they could measure the electrostatic charge that built up from contact with the tenuous outer atmosphere. On each occasion the experiment failed either because the cable snapped or jammed.
I think this is a problem for future generations.
There was a program a few years back (might have had James May presenting?) where a group of students claimed to be solving the "space elevator" problem by designing a robot that can climb a rope.
Now, i'm no experts, but i don't think it the "climbing a rope bit" that is really the stumbling block!
(lets face it, Monkeys have been climbing ropes for years, and you don't see a lot of them in space now do you...........(ignoring obvious first test pilot monkeys in US/USSR space programs ;-)
Now, i'm no experts, but i don't think it the "climbing a rope bit" that is really the stumbling block!
(lets face it, Monkeys have been climbing ropes for years, and you don't see a lot of them in space now do you...........(ignoring obvious first test pilot monkeys in US/USSR space programs ;-)
kowalski655 said:
AJS- said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Pvapour said:
You'd be a bit hungary after that kind of climb
Maybe take Turkey sandwiches?threespires said:
Or how about doing it the other way round, drop a rope from the ISS & haul people up?
Because other than carbon nanotubes and graphene ribbons there is no material that is strong enough to support it's own weight over the length required and even then, nanotubes at that size are theoretical at present.otolith said:
xRIEx said:
funkyrobot said:
Imagine if you got all the way to the top and needed a s
t!
I'm not seeing the problem.t!
Even if the ladder existed how many calories would you need to consume to get to the top?
They weight of your lunchbox (containing the required calories) + weight of space suit would be so heavy you'd not be able to move one rung.
Also, I st myself just climbing a ladder to clear the gutters, never mind climbing out into orbit. fk that!
They weight of your lunchbox (containing the required calories) + weight of space suit would be so heavy you'd not be able to move one rung.
Also, I s
t myself just climbing a ladder to clear the gutters, never mind climbing out into orbit. fk that! thebraketester said:
CrutyRammers said:
northwest monkey said:
thebraketester said:
northwest monkey said:
Genuine question - why use rockets then & not planes?
Because getting into orbit DOES require a great deal of power and speed. 17,000mph ish isn't it?
So basically, a flying object needs to be going "quite quick", but a bloke on a ladder could just climb into space?
Edited by thebraketester on Sunday 6th December 15:44
Edited by thebraketester on Sunday 6th December 15:44
I *think* that orbital velocity is measured relative to the earth's centre of mass; it's certainly not relative to the surface speed.
CrutyRammers said:
thebraketester said:
CrutyRammers said:
northwest monkey said:
thebraketester said:
northwest monkey said:
Genuine question - why use rockets then & not planes?
Because getting into orbit DOES require a great deal of power and speed. 17,000mph ish isn't it?So basically, a flying object needs to be going "quite quick", but a bloke on a ladder could just climb into space?
Edited by thebraketester on Sunday 6th December 15:44
Edited by thebraketester on Sunday 6th December 15:44
I *think* that orbital velocity is measured relative to the earth's centre of mass; it's certainly not relative to the surface speed.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff