On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:42:50AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:41:01AM +0000, Pigeon wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:37:53PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > > Pigeon writes: > > > > It would be under tension, because the upper station is outside the > > > > geosynchronous orbit. So the bit above the break would fly off into > > > > space, and the lower bit would fall back. > > > > > > The tension would taper from nominally zero at the base to maximum at the > > > attachment to the counterweight. > > > > Unless I'm totally screwed up I don't think this is right... > > everything below the geosynchronous orbit is orbiting too slowly to > > stay up on its own, everything above the geosynchronous orbit is > > orbiting too fast to not fly off unless anchored. So the maximum > > tension is where the cable crosses the geosynchronous orbit; there are > > minima at BOTH ends. > > > > In theory, you wouldn't need a lumped counterweight - you could simply > > extend the cable until the "loose end" had enough mass. This makes the > > presence of a minimum at the outside end more obvious! > > Isn't geostationary orbit ~22000 _miles_ above earth? That'd be one > hell of a cable.
Think it's more like 24,000... fortunately this particular (lumped-counterweight-less) cable is one of those magic hypothetical ones which abound in mechanics problems. On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:03:50PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > s/geosynchronous/geostationary I claim 1:41am exemption. :-) Pigeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
