Re: Space-linked sky base

On 1/30/2022 5:18 PM, skybuck2000 wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 3:44:10 PM UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
>> On 1/29/2022 8:48 AM, skybuck2000 wrote:
>>> Here is an idea which I wonder if it's physically possible or not:
>>>
>>> Multiple rocks/satelittes/counter-weights are "hung" in space/orbit around arrive.
>>>
>>> Thin,light but strong cables are hung from these counter weights.
>>>
>>> A base/platform is then hung onto these cables to create a permanent "space-linked" sky base where balloons/zeppelines can dock/land or even planes.
>>>
>>>  From there payloads can be lifted into space via a space elevator from the skybase into space. Thus cables all the way to earth are not necessary and perhaps this can circumvent weather and gravity issues and also traffic/plane issues and other engineering issues.
>>>
>>> Now the question is would this skybase slowly or quickly be pulled back down to earth ? Perhaps some rockets onto the counter-weights can keep them in space... or the counter-weights have to be placed in a high orbit around earth, this is where math, physics simulations can come into play to see/calculate what is necessary and if this is feasible or not ! ;)
>>>
>>> Bye for now,
>>> Skybuck.
>> To build the space elevator, the problem is designing
>> and building materials that will reach from earth
>> up to Geostationary orbit, which is 22,000 miles.
> 
> Carbon seems to be a common material in the universe.
> 
> So it should be possible to find it somewhere in space.
> 
> Maybe it would be easier to construct the cable from space and lower it onto earth.

Yes, indeed to your "easier to construct the cable from space
and lower it onto earth."

If you have not yet read it, I strongly urge you to
get a copy and read it of "Fountains of Paradise" by
Arthur C. Clarke,

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+fountains+of+paradise+by+arthur+c+clarke&adgrpid=1332608659719330&hvadid=83288112410753&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=47261&hvlocphy=67530&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83288391033753%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=22626_10807954&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_1mhmsv6lm3_e

$8.61 shipped to your door.
Quite interesting and easy enough read.

or, here it seems to be $8.48, hmmm

https://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780446677943?invid=16084690783&utm_campaign=NMPi_Smart_Shopping&utm_term=NMPi_Smart_Shopping&ds_rl=1264488&ds_rl=1264488&gclid=Cj0KCQiArt6PBhCoARIsAMF5wajsFlfO2E9bDPr_Ts1jE7os2Fr6uwCQW2CjcL81-VhKCuwOxsbGkE4aAj8ZEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

or go look at used book stores.

This wiki is informative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountains_of_Paradise#:~:text=The%20Fountains%20of%20Paradise%20is%20a%20novel%20by,height%20of%20approximately%2036%2C000%20kilometers%20%28approx.%2022%2C300%20miles%29.

>   
>> Your idea sounds neat, but a problem.
>>
>> It would seem to me that the big problem for this idea
>> is that the 'lower level' of this "space-linked" sky base
>> is down around 70,000 to 100,000 feet (15 to 19 miles)
>> and if your main base is in Geostationary orbit, that is
>> all the way up at 22,000 miles. So not that much distance
>> and weight has been saved.
> 
> Every little bit can help. However I see that higher up the cable(s) would be under more tension.
> 
> Would there be a benefit of a multi-cable design ?
> 
> Bye,
>    Skybuck.