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 (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#44086 06/30/12 12:45 PM
S
Swyzzlestyx
Unregistered
Swyzzlestyx
Unregistered
S
I have an idea for making America grow again. Wade fully into the exploration of space. I say we should construct buildings of about 63 to 64 miles in height, which I believe is the altitude needed for geosynchronous orbit. I understand that there are dilemmas with constructing buildings of this magnitude such as materials management, technology, and viability compared to other forms of space launching. I know the idea of a space elevator is also popular for getting goods into space, and I am not saying we shouldn’t also look into that, and we should also launch nuclear rockets. I feel the huge amount of materials needed for building these buildings will be expensive, but it isn’t as if we would be using rare earth elements. We should be able to carry it off. There are those would complain that these buildings would take too long to construct. I disagree. While it would take a long time to build, I believe it would be good because it would be a boon of employment for construction workers, engineers, and scientists, as well as all the peripheral jobs needed to complete this mission. It might also boost our schools much like the early missions of NASA to visit the Moon. I know that President Obama tried to invigorate the economy early in his term by giving money for road work, much as his predecessor had done after the great depression. The problem with President Obama’s program and the reason it didn’t work is that we are in the twenty-first century, and the infrastructure he was repairing was of the twentieth-century. We do not need a band-aid program to repair that infrastructure, but rather a new program to construct an infrastructure for the twenty-first century. I believe constructing at least one of these buildings would be vital for that infrastructure even if space elevators prove to be better.

.
#44088 07/01/12 05:09 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
the problem would be in material strenghts.
63-64 miles is a long way up.

and everything above the first inch of height would be
pressing down on the first inch of building.

if you build it out of concrete.
apx 3000 pounds per cu yard.

.06 pounds per inch of height.
a 63 mile (3991680 inches )columb of concrete weighs 256,666 pounds

concrete compressive strength is 20 - 40 MPa (3000 - 6000 psi)

the stress from the weight would bring it down way before you reached the 2nd mile.

at 1 mile the stress would be 3801 psi.

if you use a lighter material to build with then your compromising structual strengh , and a small giggle at the bottom or top would break it in half.

your only hope would be to use lighter than air compartments as you go up to offset the weight of the building materials.

so why not just use a lighter than air platform to begin with?

the platform could be tethered to the ground by 10-20 tethers and the tethers could be let out as the platform rises.

this way the wind could not cause it to sway ( much )
you could use the carbon fiber material to make the tethers.

the cost would be much less and it would actually work.
the economic boost would come from the reentry into space deployment of satellites for profit.

you could probably attain an altitude of over 60,000 ft
and lift a payload to that altitude that can be deployed from 60,000 ft using much less fuel to attain a desired altitude.

but as things almost always go the more stupider way which is always the more expensive way is usually the way we choose.

why put a satellite in orbit for $5,000 when we can put that same satellite in orbit for $5,000,000 ?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

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 UsokÂþ»­¾W
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