• Re: Recentyl read: The Mimicking of Known Successes

    From Default User@21:1/5 to pete...@gmail.com on Wed May 10 23:23:31 2023
    pete...@gmail.com wrote:


    James hypothesizes that the planet 'Giant' is Saturn, but has that
    idea spoiled by it having Io as a moon.

    Also Europa.

    If the habitat is in geosynchronous orbit, and rotates with the same
    period as the planet, (if not, how does it stay in that very specific
    and desirable orbit?), then the people in the habitat experience
    freefall, not 2.5 g. 2.5g is about the surface gravity of Jupiter. >Astonishingly (to me), the surface gravity of Saturn is about the
    same as Earth.

    I was thinking about that as well. As I said, the science is bad no
    matter how you slice it, so best not to worry too much.


    Brian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Carnegie@21:1/5 to Default User on Thu May 11 04:56:20 2023
    On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 00:25:11 UTC+1, Default User wrote:
    pete...@gmail.com wrote:


    James hypothesizes that the planet 'Giant' is Saturn, but has that
    idea spoiled by it having Io as a moon.
    Also Europa.
    If the habitat is in geosynchronous orbit, and rotates with the same
    period as the planet, (if not, how does it stay in that very specific
    and desirable orbit?), then the people in the habitat experience
    freefall, not 2.5 g. 2.5g is about the surface gravity of Jupiter. >Astonishingly (to me), the surface gravity of Saturn is about the
    same as Earth.

    I was thinking about that as well. As I said, the science is bad no
    matter how you slice it, so best not to worry too much.

    From James's account I assumed that the habitat(s)
    enjoyed neutral buoyancy in the gas giant atmosphere,
    like Cloud City in _Star Wars Episode 5: The Empire
    Strikes Back_, instead of being in orbit. You can fall.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hamish Laws@21:1/5 to pete...@gmail.com on Thu May 11 17:08:58 2023
    On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:42:19 AM UTC+10, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
    If Older really thinks that there is gravity on something in
    geosynchronous orbit, they should be slapped (along with their editor).


    You might want to reword that

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Default User@21:1/5 to Robert Carnegie on Fri May 12 04:57:25 2023
    Robert Carnegie wrote:

    From James's account I assumed that the habitat(s)
    enjoyed neutral buoyancy in the gas giant atmosphere,
    like Cloud City in _Star Wars Episode 5: The Empire
    Strikes Back_, instead of being in orbit. You can fall.

    It's a little vague but here are the few passages I found that are
    indicative:

    "The bright shuttles with their hidden arcs slid past, more frequent
    but slower as they approached the surface and their geosynchronous
    orbit."

    "Curious, I joined her, but the metal rail that circled the
    planet—that, with its fellows, kept us at a livable orbit of this inhospitable world—was the same burnished steel beneath as on the top."


    Brian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Bohn@21:1/5 to pete...@gmail.com on Fri May 12 05:39:46 2023
    pete...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Default User wrote:

    The habitable area is is created by large metal circular formations
    that are in geosynchronous orbit, each of which has a monorail train
    that circles the planet.

    If the habitat is in geosynchronous orbit, and rotates with the same period as the planet, (if not, how does it stay in that very specific and desirable orbit?),
    then the people in the habitat experience freefall, not 2.5 g. 2.5g is about the surface gravity of Jupiter. Astonishingly (to me), the surface gravity of
    Saturn is about the same as Earth.

    If these habitats have monorails circling the planet, perhaps the trains are traveling at greater than orbital speed, and exerting a centrifugal force on the rail, and from that to the habitat. It''s possible adjustments on the train as it is going
    around could also be an active balancing act to solve that whole "Ringworld is unstable!" thing.

    I'm not sure what a synchronous orbit gets you... It would seem any orbit would work for assembling the satellites, building them into a rail around the orbit, and then slowing the rail while speeding up the train. If we did it above Earth -or any
    planet where we cared about what was on the surface- an orbit other than geosynchronous might be wanted instead, so that we can choose a rotation to stay over one spot if we wish, and to whatever extent we are not freefalling in Earth's gravity we are
    still getting weight. (Plus, we can lower space elevators. Could they act as guy wires to help keep the hoop stable? I don't know. As the saying goes, you'll never get me up in one of those!)

    --
    -Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)