SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: benwood who wrote (49520)5/1/2009 7:59:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn2 Recommendations  Respond to of 218631
 
Okay, if we are going to bicker over details, yes, it's true that right at lift-off, the gravitational force is a tiny bit higher sitting on top of Mt Everest than in the Dead Sea basin. But it's a very short distance from the top that the extra gravity of the mountain becomes vanishingly small compared with the overwhelming gravity of Earth. I guess 5 kilometres would render it irrelevant.

So, it would be better to launch from the top of Mt Everest than from the Dead Sea [especially if Mt Everest was moved south to the equator - even though the gravitational force at the equator is greater than at the poles].

Minimizing drag matters, even if it's just to keep the tiles intact. Sitting around blasting fuel just to support the weight instead of accelerating is a waste of fuel. Less air means less hanging around waiting for sufficient altitude to reduce drag sufficiently to make burst blood vessels the limiting factor.

I reckon this is done enough for my liking. The maths to be precise is far more than I'm interested in doing.

Back to our regular programme for me.

Mqurice

PS: In passing, since Ilaine is lurking, they could increase lift if they'd deploy the photovoltaic wings during launch... [old in-joke from a time when I explained how the photovoltaic wings on Globalstar satellites are what keep them in orbit].