Hmmm... There's less buoyancy in thinner air so you need to displace more of it meaning a bigger "vacuum sphere"... I don't know the numbers but my intuition tells me this won't work.
Depending on how the buoyancy compares to loaded weight, deadheading might be impossible. You'll have to carry huge concrete blocks on the return trip just to keep from launching yourself into space. This could lead to very low one way costs for cargo transport between certain locations.
Hm.... Do what NASA would do if they were in GEO and wanted to be in a circular orbit with an altitude of 35,686km, 100km less than GEO. Since you are in a lower orbit, your angular velocity is higher right?
Wow, even worse than I thought. Article mentions that gas giants' higher gravity holds on to helium and hydrogen though. Maybe if the price of helium gets high enough a gas mining expedition will be in order.
On top of that, a vessel holding (?) a vacuum has to hold back considerable pressure. That's not going to be light. Would make a neat physics demo though, two bottles, one with the air sucked out on a scale.
Wikipedia says that if all of the world's air distillation plants were retooled to capture helium, they would supply about 1% of global demand. Helium is going to get a lot more expensive.
Depends on whether or not you want to put humans in it. Considering airships are pretty slow and humans are pretty impatient, this would probably be used more for cargo.
Sorry, clicked the link in an email and didn't see your other post.
Yes! I like the wheel analogy. OK: you don't get off the wheel, you move to a different wheel which is slightly smaller and slightly faster. Understand that?
shifting into different orbits and not another location in the same orbit
That's how it's done. You move to a different orbit, wait a while and then move back.
I thought you were on drugs because you keep talking about unstable orbits. The only way an orbit is unstable is if you intercept the body you're orbiting, reach escape velocity or a third body causes you to eventually do one of those things.
Here's how it works: you decelerate from GEO into an elliptical orbit with a perigee about 100km less than GEO. when you reach perigee, you decelerate again to reach a circular orbit. You are now in a circular orbit 100km lower than GEO, orbiting slightly faster than GEO. You wait until you've moved forward the required amount and reverse the process to get back into GEO. Get it?
Under the Outer Space Treaty, any object in space remains under the control and jurisdiction of the state which launched it. It doesn't matter if it does anything or not.
This. You need another burn to get into GEO, and a again to get back out. Since the station would probably be much more massive than a satellite, it would probably be better for the satellite to match the station's orbit. If the satellite is dead, a drone could go fetch it.
it's then another burn to get to the object you want to match orbits with
Do you honestly think it takes the same amount of time to make an orbit regardless of altitude? I'll give you a hint: the ISS orbits the earth in 91 minutes.
That's not going to be a trivial expenditure of fuel unless the distances are trivial.
Distance? Who carers about distance? If you're moving, you'll get there.
gravity is making it harder to get back into geostationary orbit with every passing second.
Geostationary satellites today have enough fuel left over to get into the "graveyard orbit", a few hundred km above GEO. I don't think scavenging fuel would be practical, but future satellites could use a modular system where the whole tank/pump/engine assembly is removed, refilled and bolted to a new satellite.
Under the Outer Space Treaty, the state that launches an object into space retains jurisdiction and control over it, and is responsible for any and all damage it causes. Intentional damage would probably be interpreted as an act of war.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, what if you say, rendezvous with the satellite harvester, except you overshoot by a few km/s
Can't be. They're not using it to transport ore produced by mining very small asteroid belts which are replaced every week by the asteroid gnomes.
Hmmm... There's less buoyancy in thinner air so you need to displace more of it meaning a bigger "vacuum sphere"... I don't know the numbers but my intuition tells me this won't work.
Depending on how the buoyancy compares to loaded weight, deadheading might be impossible. You'll have to carry huge concrete blocks on the return trip just to keep from launching yourself into space. This could lead to very low one way costs for cargo transport between certain locations.
They require a certain kind of high density chemical energy source that we are quickly running out of.
Hm.... Do what NASA would do if they were in GEO and wanted to be in a circular orbit with an altitude of 35,686km, 100km less than GEO. Since you are in a lower orbit, your angular velocity is higher right?
Wow, even worse than I thought. Article mentions that gas giants' higher gravity holds on to helium and hydrogen though. Maybe if the price of helium gets high enough a gas mining expedition will be in order.
On top of that, a vessel holding (?) a vacuum has to hold back considerable pressure. That's not going to be light. Would make a neat physics demo though, two bottles, one with the air sucked out on a scale.
Wikipedia says that if all of the world's air distillation plants were retooled to capture helium, they would supply about 1% of global demand. Helium is going to get a lot more expensive.
Depends on whether or not you want to put humans in it. Considering airships are pretty slow and humans are pretty impatient, this would probably be used more for cargo.
Sorry, clicked the link in an email and didn't see your other post.
Yes! I like the wheel analogy. OK: you don't get off the wheel, you move to a different wheel which is slightly smaller and slightly faster. Understand that?
shifting into different orbits and not another location in the same orbit
That's how it's done. You move to a different orbit, wait a while and then move back. I thought you were on drugs because you keep talking about unstable orbits. The only way an orbit is unstable is if you intercept the body you're orbiting, reach escape velocity or a third body causes you to eventually do one of those things.
Here's how it works: you decelerate from GEO into an elliptical orbit with a perigee about 100km less than GEO. when you reach perigee, you decelerate again to reach a circular orbit. You are now in a circular orbit 100km lower than GEO, orbiting slightly faster than GEO. You wait until you've moved forward the required amount and reverse the process to get back into GEO. Get it?
Siri's head is in the clouds too.
Yeah, but the law doesn't.
It wouldn't be too hard, but it would be impossible without everyone noticing.
Under the Outer Space Treaty, any object in space remains under the control and jurisdiction of the state which launched it. It doesn't matter if it does anything or not.
This. You need another burn to get into GEO, and a again to get back out. Since the station would probably be much more massive than a satellite, it would probably be better for the satellite to match the station's orbit. If the satellite is dead, a drone could go fetch it.
(which it won't be because it's not a stable orbit, in fact the altitude would still be around geostationary)
What are you smoking? Here, read this.
it's then another burn to get to the object you want to match orbits with
Do you honestly think it takes the same amount of time to make an orbit regardless of altitude? I'll give you a hint: the ISS orbits the earth in 91 minutes.
That's not going to be a trivial expenditure of fuel unless the distances are trivial.
Distance? Who carers about distance? If you're moving, you'll get there.
gravity is making it harder to get back into geostationary orbit with every passing second.
What is this I don't even.
the space program of the United States of America is going to manufacture satellites in outer space
Now that's progress.
In terms of cost, LEO is the halfway point to GEO. Getting from GEO to LEO and back would cost the same as launching a brand new satellite.
Geostationary satellites today have enough fuel left over to get into the "graveyard orbit", a few hundred km above GEO. I don't think scavenging fuel would be practical, but future satellites could use a modular system where the whole tank/pump/engine assembly is removed, refilled and bolted to a new satellite.
We need some kind of agreement for space like the one we have about Antarctica.
The Outer Space Treaty is almost exactly that.
I don't understand the question. The whole point is to reduce launch mass.
Under the Outer Space Treaty, the state that launches an object into space retains jurisdiction and control over it, and is responsible for any and all damage it causes. Intentional damage would probably be interpreted as an act of war.
Frankensat goes to the highest bidder.