On 2008-03-02, Simon Morden <simon.morden@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> If we assume a standard construction for a tower, with a tether
> dirtside, an asteroidal counterweight at the far end, and a waystation
> at LEO, am I right in assuming that the waystation is actually in a
> orbit too slow for its particular value of r?
By "at LEO" I assume you mean "at a height comparable with satellites
which are in LEO", because it certainly isn't in orbit itself. In
other words, in the range of about 200-2000 km. If so, then very much
too slow.
At 200 km altitude, gravity at the waystation will be about 94% of
that at the surface, the difference probably not perceptible most of
the time. At 2000 km it will be significantly less, about 58%, but
still not close to freefall.
> This being the case, the waystation will have gravity (towards
> Earth) pro****tional to r^2 minus that due to its rotational v? And
> not in freefall as I've described in the first draft?
Inversely pro****tional to r^2, where r = altitude + Earth's radius.
Also subtract w^2 r, where w is the constant 2*pi/day angular speed.
- Tim
|
