For my last blog post, I wrote about a
problem with space travel. This problem was fuel. For this blog, I
will be writing my opinion about an idea proposed by scientists in
1976 and 1994 for getting an object into space, which is the main
reason for the need for so much fuel and for such powerful engines.
This idea is the rotating skyhook.
The idea behind a rotating skyhook is
a massive space station in orbit that has a tether, or hook, attached
to it that rotates in the direction opposite of the orbit of the
station. The orbiting station will allow the hook to stay suspended
“from the sky”, hence the name. The opposing orbital spin and
tether spin will have the effect of making the hook travel in an
epicycloidal pattern around the planet. This means that the hook
would be momentarily stationary relatively low in the atmosphere,
allowing it to travel deeper into the atmosphere without drag, and
allowing the object to be attached to the hook at very low speeds. It
also will have the interesting visual effect from the ground of a
hook on a tether suddenly descending vertically from the sky,
slowing, stopping, and reversing to leave. The hook would lift the
object away from the planet and accelerate it so that when it is the
farthest distance from the planet, it would be moving very fast,
allowing it to enter orbit or leave the planet very efficiently.
There are some problems however. The
force of lifting the object into orbit would have an equal and
opposite effect on the station. This means that every time an object
was lifted, the station would move to a lower orbit. This is not as
bad as it sounds, the station could have a small amount of thrust
over a large amount of time, balancing to the force to lift the
object. This can be achieved by more efficient but less throughput
propulsion methods that I will be writing about in some upcoming blog
posts. The other problem is that the station would have to be many
multiples of the mass of the object being lifted. The tether would
also have to be very light and strong, but nothing past what we are
capable of. These two problems would lead to an extremely large cost
to build.
Overall, in my opinion, this is one of
the less outrageous methods of getting to space more efficiently. I
feel as though the costs would be massive to build and require
cooperation of nations, but that the benefits outweigh the costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment