2 ms·
Your "skyscraper" would need to have its top in geostationary orbit, or else it would be wrapping up around the earth as its top would be in LEO or HEO and thus
by fchollet 12y ago
Your "skyscraper" would need to have its top in geostationary orbit, or else it would be wrapping up around the earth as its top would be in LEO or HEO and thus would be moving at a different speed than its base. I.e. your skyscraper (or cable) would be crashing down.
So that's a space elevator. But can a space elevator be said to be "flying"? It stays above a single spot the whole time.
- ajuc 12y agoBut then you can take one brick from the bottom, throw it out, and you launch into space.
- bjornsing 12y agoBS. ;) First of all before a (hypothetical) "skyscraper" could fly it would have to have its top beyond geostationary orbit. How so? Because a skyscraper is geostationary and if its center of mass is below geostationary orbit then it's simply not orbiting. It doesn't have enough kinetic energy. Secondly, there's no law that an object revolving around earth must do so at "orbit" speed/altitude. You and I are perfect examples of that: we're going far too slow. Only consequence of that is that earths gravitational pull must constantly be counteracted by a supporting force. If an object were to revolve around earth at a speed faster than "orbit" that's also fine, as long as there's a force keeping it down. So, no, this "skyscraper" could have its top well below geostationary orbit as long as it rests firmly on mother earth. Once its center of mass is beyond geostationary orbit though it would need to be held down.