connecting a cable to the moon

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gordon Gekko, Feb 2, 2003.

  1. lol.. here's an idea. instead of flying up into space with rockets every time, why don't we connect a long cable from the earth to the moon? now i know things rotate, so then you just connect the cable to the north or south poles. i drew a picture to explain what i'm talking about. :) i know it's more complicated than this, but you could make variations of my idea using the same concept.

    once the cable is connected, then you have some elevator type vehicle that travels along the cable that can carry people, equipment, etc.

    no, i'm not insane.
  2. and after that a cable car to Mars...

  3. haha

    well look at what i just found..i guess i'm not the first. :(

    "space elevator"

    p.s. daniel_m, i'm not suggesting connecting cables all over the place. i'm just saying one to the moon for a way to escape earth's gravity. once outside the gravity, it would be easy to send satellites and things to other planets. or, you could also go all the way to the moon and blast off easier from there since the gravity is less. however, you might as well just blast off from the cable.
  4. No you're not insane in the conceptal realm.

    The venture is being tossed around for getting into space. But that connection to the moon piece... :)
  5. speaking of the moon, i have a questions:

    1. a rocket travels horizontally 5 feet off the ground from malibu, CA across the ocean. the rocket is traveling faster than 25,000 MPH ( escape velocity ). will it miss the curvature of the earth and careen into space ??

    2. if you were born on a completely stationary space station and were transported to earth after 20 years of being stationary, would you feel the earth rotate ??

    just wondering,

  6. It's wasted time and money like that study (paid for under NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts program) that are part of the reason all we have in operation is the primative and archaic Space Shuttle - and now all we have are three of those.

    NASA and Lucent Technologies have a lot in common. Neither operation, nor their resident scientists, are especially concerned with achieving things on a fast track, cost effective, or high return basis - consequently NASA wastes time and money on impractical and useless mental masturbation like this ridiculous "space elevator" study and the aborted X-33 program (which was a wasted duplication of effort and cost and still produced nothing definitive or viable).
  7. 1. Setting aside the obvious aerodynamic issues, air friction and surface heating, and worrying about smacking into a boat or something else as the rocket careens 5 feet above the ocean at 7 miles/second, the rocket should eventually exit the atmosphere

    2. What do you mean by "complete stationary" space station? If it doesn't rotate, is everyone weightless for 20 years? Is it in orbit or just floating in space not near any planetary body?
  8. hehe sounds like you don't like the idea, ArchAngel. i think the concept is pretty cool. what do you think is the right direction to head in regards to the space program? do you still want to work with conventional rockets? just curious, what does interest you since you don't like the "space elevator."
    #10     Feb 2, 2003