i like the scientific mention about the gravity and durability
leaves things very ambiguous
Date: 29 Jul 2008 15:06
Number of posts: 19
RSS: New posts
22 miles ~ 39 km = 39,000 m =/= 39,000 km. Unit conversion mistake. The most common kind of scientific mistake on the Wiki, I've been noticing.
Indeed. 39 km isn't even out of Earth's atmosphere to any appreciable degree, though it's far enough up that you couldn't breathe up there.
I think calling the summit object a "satellite" is probably just too misleading and the changes that would be necessary to make it into a satellite are too great. For example, if it really was geostationary it'd be directly above the equator, so the rope would rise at an angle of somewhere between approximately 30 and 40 degrees (depending on where in Tibet the mountain is) from vertical. Furthermore, there'd be satellite collisions with it - this is one of the major risks faced by space elevator designs in real life.
I think it's best to just describe the summit object as an "object" of some sort. It's no more a satellite than a tethered balloon would be.
Ah, why haven't we sent an aircraft or spacecraft to the summit?
Piloting any craft that close to a meteor is an unnecessarily risky operation.
Also, a space launch would be very hard to cover up.
I forgot how awesome this article is.
It is totally awesome. My question is: Should it be preserved exactly as is because it is from 2008? Should it be gently tweaked to fit with the modern views? Is there a point where a SCP becomes 'sacred text'? (no pun intended.)
Why haven't we built a climbing robot with a camera on its head and sent that up?