Prev: Type Ia Supernova brewing within Milky Way
Next: Revving up particles in the cosmos
From: Marvin the Martian on 22 Nov 2009 15:30
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:12 -0800, john wrote:


>
> Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>
> Why?
>
> Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height equator or
> not?
>
> Why?

Using the same bad logic, airplanes don't fly above 10,000 ft.

From: john on 22 Nov 2009 21:09
On Nov 22, 2:30 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:12 -0800, john wrote:
>
> > Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>
> > Why?
>
> > Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height equator or
> > not?
>
> > Why?
>
> Using the same bad logic, airplanes don't fly above 10,000 ft.

Not without pressurized cabins and de-icers on
their wings.
You gonna heat that sucker all the way up?
Or just for the length in the atmosphere?

How much rocket fuel will that use?

What is the point?
To make space access less expensive?

Like Al says, the endpoints are the only points that
want to stay where they are; the rest of it is going to
curl up like a spring.

It is a very stupid idea.

john
From: Marvin the Martian on 23 Nov 2009 10:21
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:09:17 -0800, john wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2:30 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:12 -0800, john wrote:
>>
>> > Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> > Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height equator
>> > or not?
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> Using the same bad logic, airplanes don't fly above 10,000 ft.
>
> Not without pressurized cabins and de-icers on their wings.

It was my point that technology solved the problem.

> You gonna heat that sucker all the way up? Or just for the length in the
> atmosphere?

You don't have to "heat" it. Airplanes use heat because it is an
available waste product of their engines. Some airplanes use "impulse"
methods to remove ice. There are other approaches that could be used. And
no, you don't have to remove ice where ice doesn't form.

> How much rocket fuel will that use?

This is a space elevator, not a rocket.

> What is the point?

To get to space a lot more cheaply than rockets.

> To make space access less expensive?

Yep.

> Like Al says,

Al is a sociopath, here to insult people because he has ego damage. He's
not here to talk about physics.

> the endpoints are the only points that want to stay where
> they are; the rest of it is going to curl up like a spring.

Yeah, that happens when I twirl a object on a string around me. NOT.

From: Marvin the Martian on 23 Nov 2009 12:52
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:29:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:

> using a strong laser to axelerate an object in2 orbit? this can be
> dangerous and also very dificult to do

How would this work? Make an ablative reaction mass on the hind end of
the object and blast it with a laser? You can't handle rolling the rocket
into orbit that way.

There are groups investigating the use of a laser to transfer power to
the elevator so it can climb.
From: Raymond Yohros on 24 Nov 2009 11:58
On Nov 23, 12:52 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:29:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > using a strong laser to axelerate  an object in2 orbit? this can be
> > dangerous and also very dificult to do
>
> How would this work? Make an ablative reaction mass on the hind end of
> the object and blast it with a laser? You can't handle rolling the rocket
> into orbit that way.
>
> There are groups investigating the use of a laser to transfer power to
> the elevator so it can climb.
>

i have better ideas but i dont think i should talk about it!
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Type Ia Supernova brewing within Milky Way
Next: Revving up particles in the cosmos