|
SF (non-Military) Question of the Day! | by Illiad | 2007-05-18 00:01:48 |
| Depends how you count space elevators |
by admeralthrawn |
2007-05-18 00:13:28 |
If you've ever read 3001, you know what I mean. Space elevators up to a ring station in geosync orbit, all the way around the world. Such a system could easily hold the entire world's population with plenty of room to spare, without anyone on the surface at all. And you'd have pretty much infinite solar energy. If we were to colonize other planets, we'd really want one both here and there, to make travel between world easier, although a less ambitious version would clearly be sufficient.
Free-floating stations would be relatively pointless by comparison. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Hang on, how can you stuff 6 billion people | by Klaranth | 2007-05-18 02:02:47 |
|
Let's do the math | by Control | 2007-05-18 02:21:29 |
|
Wouldnt it be better to have three rings, each | by Klaranth | 2007-05-18 02:40:59 |
|
That'd cause problems with space elevators. | by Phoon | 2007-05-18 02:44:34 |
|
What about the "wobble" in axial tilt? | by skern | 2007-05-18 04:43:04 |
|
Do you mean Chandler Wobble? | by Control | 2007-05-18 23:31:59 |
|
That wouldn't work, however | by admeralthrawn | 2007-05-18 07:14:45 |
|
Imagine four towers 36000 Km high and about | by ideur | 2007-05-18 02:42:21 |
|
a little math | by rhinobird | 2007-05-18 02:51:41 |
|
What is the amount of material needed? | by skern | 2007-05-18 04:44:42 |
|
The numbers seem correct | by MatthewDBA | 2007-05-18 05:19:37 |
|
Some important math is missing | by lurker69 | 2007-05-18 12:18:54 |
|
Well, after the wars there will only be | by Havoc | 2007-05-18 05:25:49 |
|
Ever read "The World Inside" by Silverberg? | by Havoc | 2007-05-18 05:21:01 |
|
I prefer my towers several orders of magnitude | by admeralthrawn | 2007-05-18 07:15:48 |
