How large does a ball of dirt and grass need to be in space in order to have an atmosphere so that Co2 can be omitted...

How large does a ball of dirt and grass need to be in space in order to have an atmosphere so that Co2 can be omitted and we can have more places to breath in space?

In other words, why and how aren't we making more space hobbles that aren't just stations?

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencealert.com/physicists-have-created-a-black-hole-in-the-lab-and-it-could-finally-confirm-the-existence-of-hawking-radiation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm no astrophysicist, but I'm sure a body in space has to have a sizeable mass in order to retain an atmosphere naturally, especially one that we can breath. And that doesn't even take into account a magnetosphere to keep solar radiation from microwaving the whole thing to hell.

>>How large does a ball of dirt and grass need to be in space in order to have an atmosphere so that Co2 can be omitted
what the fuck are you even asking?
>>why and how aren't we making more space hobbles that aren't just stations?
it's currently expensive to launch stuff into space. To get things cheap enough to launch a space colony, we need space travel to be cheap enough to put a mass driver on the moon. Stay tuned.

the magnetosphere would require just some sort of volcanic activity from the center out correct? And plate movements?

> expensive to launch stuff into space

our ships are designed as bullets themselves, each individually. Why do we not make them rather heavy objects and use the power of inertia as well as the angular propulsion off the earth as we catapult the ship in addition to taking into account the earth's rotation and pull and using them to our favor? This is a long fucking sentence, but what I'm saying is we need to make it cheaper to get things into space because we're funding things one by one rather than all together.

> stay tuned.

speaking of which, how's that teleporting things into space thing going? didn't we do it a year and a half ago?

>Why do we not make them rather heavy objects and use the power of inertia as well as the angular propulsion off the earth as we catapult the ship in addition to taking into account the earth's rotation and pull and using them to our favor?
how many bongs have you inhaled before typing this sentence?
rockets are already utilizing earth rotation during launches and most heavy shit launches near the equator eastward

Everything has to be on the inside. Its just easier that way. Nobody wants to look at the sky anyway its scary, and if you really want you can just view space on your tv from one of the many publically available streaming telescopes...

right, well what we need is a way to get the same amount of lift off power at less a cost. The earth causes a lot of inertia already and we are using it according to you, what we need is a way to emulate more at launch sites. I'm no rocket scientist but why can't we make the ship fall first and curve up into the sky? We have canyons that go down for miles, if they could save us money of space-gas, I don't see why we can't utilize them.

>I'm no rocket scientist but why can't we make the ship fall first and curve up into the sky?

because gravity only pulls shit down at 10m/s and that's straight down without any friction
you need 1000 times that much to attain stable orbit.
wasted effort

Well why can't we just turn gravity upside down then? It sounds like a fucked up idea but so did man-made black holes, and look what we've done?

We need to make an isolation silo shaped chamber that is absent from many of the things outside the chamber like air, wind, gravity, ect and let the ship just fall like a 2 million pound piece of metal would anywhere else if it dropped.

Im pleb tier at understanding this stuff but you cant gain energy or momentum like that. Not with a rocket, you would need a plane and warm air or engine power for lift. Preferably both.

For passengers i think richard bransons space planes could possibly hook onto a tether hanging from an orbital station and then small volumes of goods and people could move up the tether on an elevator.

Otherwise an enormous agnetic rail could be built up a mountain slope as a mass driver to give some initial lift. Prohibitively expensive.

Its cheaper, faster and simpler to send the rocket sraight up, or near enough to. Thats why they look like a needle built to punch through the atmosphere instead of like a bird built to drift through it.

Without friction, the ball always rises to it's original height again. If you vary the angle, it rolls a longer or shorter distance but it comes back to the same height.
That's conservation of energy. Motion around a track doesn't add anything to the gravitational potential energy it the ball had at the start. Falling converts that potential into kinetic energy. When the track rises, the ball slows and stops when it's KE has all reverted to potential.

If the second half of the track is horizontal, it never rises again. It just rolls indefinitely at a constant speed. (We're still neglecting friction.) If the track eventually climbs again, the ball goes to the original height and stops. Nothing has changed except the time it took.

There is no free lunch!!

Because we can't turn gravity "upside down". We can't even turn it off.
Despite H.G.Wells, there is no such thing as a "gravity insulator" and there can't be.

What have we done? Man-made black holes don't exist either.

by the current understanding gravity is literally just curvature of space caused by massive bodies and you can't manipulate it any other way except introducing extreme amount of mass in small area of space
shielding yourself from it or "reversing" its effects is something you can't even begin to theorize about without ditching known physics

Well now we could use plane-like things to launch probes at least to do our bidding for surveying space.

I suppose in that regard then the only thing we can do is make a track that extends into space, but that would be incredibly costly. Now in a thread I've made a few times over the past year I proposed sending nukes to Mars to breath there again from volcanic activity and a new magnetic field. I was explained in depth why that theory was incorrect and have the threads saved actually, but in the thread we talked about creating an artificial orbit with an extensively long copper wire, of which would allow things such as a new moon to rotate around the planet. What I'm getting at with this is putting a copper wire wrap in the atmosphere of earth and letting another extensively long wire hand off of it back down to Earth. From this wire we can create a minimal 'track' for things to follow into space. We would need to make a way not necessarily for it to be launched, but rather for it to be pulled up. Now right now we are in the works of making a sky scraper that will hang from an asteroid, so this isn't rocket science here (well it kinda is. . .) but regardless we have opportunity to make things easier on ourselves.

sciencealert.com/physicists-have-created-a-black-hole-in-the-lab-and-it-could-finally-confirm-the-existence-of-hawking-radiation

Climbing to orbital altitude isn't hard. Going up 100 km is energetically equivalent to reaching 1414 meters/sec. That's how fast you'd hit the pavement if you fell from the top of a 100 km tower (neglecting friction).
If you had a rocket with an Isp of 450, you'd need a mass-ratio of 1.37 That is, 37 lbs. of fuel for each lb. of ship & payload.
LEO orbital velocity is 7.9 km/sec. You'd need a mass-ratio of 5.8 Once you figure in air resistance and gravity-losses, it's more like 8 or 9. A ship is mostly fuel tanks. Which is why no one is building single-stage-to-orbit craft.

Grabbing a cable from an orbiting space station means being yanked away at 6 or 7 km/sec. The jolt would kill a human. And even if the cargo could withstand it, the momentum has to come from somewhere. The orbiting station is slowed. If you don't want it to come crashing down, you have to add momentum periodically. That means using rockets (whose fuel has to be carried up to the station in the first place.) There's no advantage in using the station as a temporary momentum bank.

Re-read the ScienceAlert link. Physicists created something more-or-less analogous to a black hole. The equations governing its behavior are similar in certain respects. But it's not at all the same thing; no more than billiard balls rolling over an indented surface means the central depression IS a gravity field.

>use plane-like things

This only gets you to a certain point. From there you lose lift due to a lack of air pressure i think. Then you need to go higher to get into orbit... Thats why rockets are easier. Launching a rocket from a plane is difficult thats why richard branson has failed so far. Difficult (not impossible). So Idk what his problem is, airlines are not doing well atm so he probably has run out of money... Id like to replace planes with something more profitable but meh.

Solar powered drones with massive wingspans have been proposed to replace satellites and mobile phone base stations but i think there are concerns to do with the weather and big things drifting out of the sky into a downtown multistory complex...

We should be building underground...

>a track that extends into space

See space elevators. They are possible already on other orbital bodies using well researched materials like kevlar but for earth the high gravity well means we have to wait for carbon nanofibers with lengths of 100s of kms or some nonsense. Thats why I suggested just dipping one partway to the surface, above the weather, low enough for a spaceplane to hook on, stabilise and shift cargo before detaching and drifting back to the surface
If you really want Ill draw a picture of what I mean but Im bad at art.

>Grabbing a cable from an orbiting space station means being yanked away at 6 or 7 km/sec.

Is this true of a station in geostationary orbit? Would it be so difficult? I mean airforce pilots refuel in the upper atmosphere all the time right?

I think I get the overall idea, and I was only pointing out the emulated black hole to make a point that we are capable of doing a lot of good shit.

Putting stuff above weather is a great idea to save some of the initial launch problems, at this point why don't we launch things from places of higher elevation such as in parts of Asia, or mountains in Greenland or Antarctica?

It works -- with a caveat.
Suppose you have a satellite in geosynchronous orbit above the equator. You can let down a cable and the end isn't moving at all! You don't need an airplane. You can just climb it like a beanstalk. Of course, your weight now means that downward force on the satellite it greater than the centrifugal force holding it up. We don't want it to fall. So you run another cable "outwards" from the satellite and hook a massive counterweight there. It would fly off into space except that the cable restrains it. The ground-side end of the cable is anchored down and the whole thing is in tension. Elevator cars can ride up and down. It costs nothing to get into orbit since the descending cars can power the rising ones.

I said there was a caveat. You have 35,786 km (22,236 mi) of cable hanging down. Each bit of the cable has to support the weight of the cable beneath is. No material on Earth is that strong. Some materials come close, but they have been, so far, only produced in minute quantities.

Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator to learn more.

>Thats why I suggested just dipping one partway to the surface, above the weather, low enough for a spaceplane to hook on, stabilise and shift cargo before detaching and drifting back to the surface
>If you really want Ill draw a picture of what I mean but Im bad at art.
This is called a skyhook. Pretty cool idea.

Launching from a height is good. Avoid some air resistance.
Even better is launching in an eastward direction from a site near the equator. That way, you get a free boost from the Earth's spin, which can be as much as 1000 miles/hr.

Ideally, you'd like;
1) A site near the equator
2) A high mountain
3) Open ocean beneath the flight path so dropped stages and such don't hurt anybody

Not many places fulfill all 3 requirements.
Cape Canaveral satisfies 1) and 3)
Mt Kilimanjaro satisfies 1) and 2) but you have legal problems when you launch from another country's territory. Russia is building a brand-new spaceport because their current one, in Kazakhstan, isn't part of the USSR any more.

Rotating skyhooks get around some of the problems with fixed space elevators. Don't need to be anywhere near as long.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
is another idea. It could be built today (Maybe. Some engineering still required) if there was a demand for sufficient lift capacity to make it economically feasible.

It's a huge (but spidery and not all that massive) structure which sticks up above the atmosphere and is maybe 1000 kms. long.
It's held up actively. A roofed arena relies on steel beams in an arch to get an unobstructed (no pillars) span. But there are lightweight structures supported only by blowing compressed air into them. If the fans failed, they'd collapse. The launch loop is like that. It has to be absolutely reliable or the whole thing comes down when the power dies.

You need water, magnetic shielding, some kind of biological system to support your grass and enough gravity to hold shit together.

I've always wondered if Mars died because of it's size and it was able to get half way there but was too small for the atmosphere to calibrate appropriately.

Basically gravity needs to be strong enough so that whatever gas the atmosphere is made out of has a molecular velocity less than the escape velocity of the planet. This is why light gasses like H2 and He are not found in our atmosphere in any real amounts, while heavier molecular gases like N2, O2, CO2 are. There are other factors like temperature that also affect the speed of gas particles.

Just adding that a magnetic field helps by making it so high energy particles from the sun don't hit gas molecules and give them enough energy to escape.

Isn't gravity just large scale electromagnetism

no, where did that come from?

I wonder if the layers of carbon sinking into the crust and exploding back to the surface fuel the core, and by removing coal and oil layers we are dooming this planet.

No.
Nothing "fuels" the core. The heat leaking out is from radioactivity, but mostly leftover heat from when the planet coalesced as proto-planets fell together to form the Earth.

Does this vary depending on the magnitude(s) of the star(s) in the vicinity dispersing star dust and other destructive wastes onto the potential planet? As in, could a small planet sustain itself if it were on a far region of a solar system while a large planet could hardly sustain in the near region?

Pretty much depends on the temperature.
Titan (around Saturn) has an extensive atmosphere. It's temperature is 128 K and its escape velocity is 0.81 km/sec.
Ganymede (around Jupiter) has no atmosphere. Its temperature is 173 K and its escape velocity is 0.90 km/sec.

So Ganymede, despite having a "deeper" gravity well (harder for molecules to break free) can't hang on to gasses as well as Titan does. Warmer planet = faster moving molecules (of a given molecular weight.)
Both planets are hellishly cold by Terran standards.

You keep seeing posts on Veeky Forums claiming "if only Mars had a magnetic shield, we could give it an atmosphere." But it would leak away anyway even without the effects of the solar wind. Mars is too small. (The leakage would take a long time. Perhaps long enough to make the project worthwhile even if we knew it wouldn't last. The period it would be "habitable" would be much shortened if we managed to warm the planet as well.)

> You keep seeing posts on Veeky Forums claiming "if only Mars had a magnetic shield

I made those posts. . . . . but I see what you're saying, I didn't take into account the difference in size on Mars prior in comparison to the size of other planets with atmospheres.