• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

British Space Exploration project to rival India's and China's

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    Space starts 62 miles up.

    So it's only 43 to go. I could cycle that!
    You could do, but unless you also manage to speed up to 9 km/s or so, you will plummet back to Earth straight after you stop peddling. Most of the energy you need is needed to achieve orbital velocity, not to gain height.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
      You could do, but unless you also manage to speed up to 9 km/s or so, you will plummet back to Earth straight after you stop peddling. Most of the energy you need is needed to achieve orbital velocity, not to gain height.
      I hate negative people.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
        I hate negative people.
        I hate cyclists
        Me, me, me...

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
          You could do, but unless you also manage to speed up to 9 km/s or so, you will plummet back to Earth straight after you stop peddling. Most of the energy you need is needed to achieve orbital velocity, not to gain height.
          Don’t discourage him. I was looking forward to watching him try.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
            You could do, but unless you also manage to speed up to 9 km/s or so, you will plummet back to Earth straight after you stop peddling. Most of the energy you need is needed to achieve orbital velocity, not to gain height.
            But he could cycle a fixed gym bike attached to a giant battery powering a giant magneto-catapult and launch himself into orbit. Please provide the calculations. This could be just what UK needs to save the economy.
            Bored.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
              I hate negative people.
              Cooler than balloons would be rail guns or air breathing rockets.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by ace00 View Post
                But he could cycle a fixed gym bike attached to a giant battery powering a giant magneto-catapult and launch himself into orbit. Please provide the calculations. This could be just what UK needs to save the economy.
                The calculations are dead easy (contrary to the popular belief, rocket science is quite easy), but I can't be arsed.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by ace00 View Post
                  But he could cycle a fixed gym bike attached to a giant battery powering a giant magneto-catapult and launch himself into orbit. Please provide the calculations. This could be just what UK needs to save the economy.
                  Right, I’ll start. If you’re fit, you can produce about 300 watts continually for an hour or so. Top cyclists on EPO might manage 600 or 700 for a while, that bloke Hoy who won everything in Beijing might hit 1200 watts for about half a minute or so.

                  If someone can work out how many kilowatts are needed to accelerate an average man (80kg) and the average home trainer (15 kg), so 95 kgs to 9 km/s then we have a theoretical idea of how long a given cyclist would have to ride to store enough energy in the magneto catapult. Of course, we’d have to build in a big margin, maybe as high as 60% to account for the loss of kinetic energy to thermal energy in the catapult and the pulleys.
                  And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                  Comment


                    #19
                    I once did a science project where we were going to use a giant water filled rocket and heat it up using ground based lasers so the steam would propel it into orbit, we calculated the rocket would need to be about 3 miles across and 12 miles high, even then we were probably miles out.

                    It's still better than the yanks idea of propelling a space station into orbit using a series of nuclear explosions, they only ditched the idea in 1971.
                    Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Try this, much more fun. SFW

                      Linky
                      Me, me, me...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X