4 ms·

What material would you suggest is strong enough to handle the orbit of two massive bodies (relative to girth of a poll one could realistically hold onto)? And

What material would you suggest is strong enough to handle the orbit of two massive bodies (relative to girth of a poll one could realistically hold onto)? And what do you suppose the consequences of altering the moons orbit would be? Something with elasticity would be a better option than something that is strong but even that wouldn't resolve some of the other issues presented; such as the moons surface not being geostationary to any point on the Earth.

amelius 8y ago
> such as the moons surface not being geostationary to any point on the Earth. The pole would also solve that problem ...
- oblio 8y ago
  "I christen thee: The Space Kebab!" :D
- laumars 8y ago
  ...not without tearing the moon apart in the process. At which point you have much bigger issues (as well as no need for a pole in the first place). But given you're just making absurd "just do X" style statements I'm sure you'll reply with some remark about gluing the moon back together or wrapping it in clingfilm before you insert the pole to strengthen it's integrity.
  - arghwhat 8y ago
    Glue and clingfilm? Don't be silly. The solution is obviously attaching rockets to the moon to accelerate it first.
jerf 8y ago
"What material would you suggest is strong enough to handle the orbit of two massive bodies (relative to girth of a poll one could realistically hold onto)?" I'm not sure that question is well-defined; to the best of our knowledge we're firmly in the realm of magic here regardless of the details. Nothing even like a metal pole could traverse that distance. The materials that just might barely work to build a space elevator from Earth to Earth geostationary orbit are strong against tension, but this "pole" would be experiencing not only a lot more of that, but also some shear forces, and given how close to the theoretical maxes the space elevator already is, I don't think I have to work any math to know that it's just out of the question.

amelius 8y ago

> such as the moons surface not being geostationary to any point on the Earth. The pole would also solve that problem ...

oblio 8y ago
"I christen thee: The Space Kebab!" :D
laumars 8y ago
...not without tearing the moon apart in the process. At which point you have much bigger issues (as well as no need for a pole in the first place). But given you're just making absurd "just do X" style statements I'm sure you'll reply with some remark about gluing the moon back together or wrapping it in clingfilm before you insert the pole to strengthen it's integrity.
- arghwhat 8y ago
  Glue and clingfilm? Don't be silly. The solution is obviously attaching rockets to the moon to accelerate it first.

jerf 8y ago

"What material would you suggest is strong enough to handle the orbit of two massive bodies (relative to girth of a poll one could realistically hold onto)?" I'm not sure that question is well-defined; to the best of our knowledge we're firmly in the realm of magic here regardless of the details. Nothing even like a metal pole could traverse that distance. The materials that just might barely work to build a space elevator from Earth to Earth geostationary orbit are strong against tension, but this "pole" would be experiencing not only a lot more of that, but also some shear forces, and given how close to the theoretical maxes the space elevator already is, I don't think I have to work any math to know that it's just out of the question.