Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#39955 09/06/11 05:14 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
R
Rallem Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
I was discussing the idea of a sky scraper standing between 62 and 65 miles tal so spacecraft could be launched from it. I mentioned that the common wisdom was for a building that tall the base would have to be of equal square distance so the building would need to be a little over 8 miles squared. My brother said the one flaw with this topic is therer is noplace with large enough bed rock to support the building of that size. I thought the 8+ square miles was the equation to cover the lack of bed rock. Am I right? Is this lack of bed rock something an engineer could work around?

.
Rallem #39971 09/07/11 05:51 AM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
You don't need any particular kind of rock to build on. That just affects the cost. You make as much artificial "bedrock" as you can afford using steel and concrete.

Have you looked at space elevators? That seems like a more realistic direction.

Last edited by kallog; 09/07/11 05:52 AM.
kallog #40076 09/11/11 11:12 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
R
Rallem Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
I disagree with you on the space elevator idea Kallog, because while the space elevator is cheaper & uses fewer resources, it can only haul supplies in a very limited amount. Also the space elevator will eventually fall crashing a 62 to 65 mile long whip against the earth in any unknown direction and the whip might even strike several times. Even the tension of a storm could bring the satellite down if the cable were attached to it. The building would require an unusually large amount of material to create, plus it would probably take several decades to create, and it will become a target of opportunity against extremists, but with preventative steps and maintenance the building could last. In addition to the sustainability of using a building to raise supplies into space, it could also be used to raise entire space ships into Earths orbit, as well as crews.

Rallem #40079 09/11/11 01:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
It's questionable whether the fuel savings would outweigh the resources/costs of construction. You'd have to be pretty confident of a stupendous amount of satellite launches and whatever else rockets do, which is hardly anything. As well as hoping no other technology appears before the building's paid for itself.

Energy savings wouldn't be amazing. It still takes a lot of energy to lift a spacecraft up a building.

What if the building collapses? Would be worse than a space elevator collapsing!

Either way, these things could be built in uninhabited areas or even on the ocean floor I guess.


Have you seen this? It looks a lot more realistic than a building that does little more than hold itself up:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/06/proposed-free-standing-inflatable-tower.html

Last edited by kallog; 09/11/11 01:48 PM.
kallog #40082 09/11/11 04:05 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
R
Rallem Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 194
Actually I would hope other technologies would be discovered before the completion of the building, or else the entire purpose for the building would be moot. The thing is the engineers and architects designing and erecting this building would need to have some foresight in order to make room for and implement these technological advancements. Having a permanent structure could give any nation it was built in a significant advantage in the next space race both strategically and economically. Where other nations looking to launch vehicles and resupply them probably would opt to utilizing the building since building others might be considered prohibitive due to the enormous requirements for resources.

It is true the building could fall bringing a much more catastrophic incident, but with engineering, maintenance, and a planned life cycle that threat can be reduced. Simply put the building could be deconstructed when the engineers decide the time is right, and the resources can be recycled.

As far as elevating a space craft into space or launching it, it might not appear that a significant amount of energy is saved, but when you look at the energy being from a precious fuel source or from a renewable energy source such as green electricity the savings could be tremendous.

That was an interesting article.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5