It depends. Do you mean standing on one of the poles, at the equator, or somewhere between? I think you get slightly different answers depending on which you mean. If you're on a pole and the moon has no wobble or wind, it should come straight back down. If you're at the equator shooting straight up from the center of mass, it should come down straight behind you. Between the poles and equator, though, you would have to work it out with trig and calculus or something, which I can't even begin to do.JacksSmirkingRevenge wrote:Question- If you were on the inside wall of a collossal rotating cylinder and fired an arrow straight up (that is, through or toward the rotational axis) where would it come down?....Where it was fired from?...Or does it depend how 'high' it were fired?
Our moon with atmosphere?
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
One problem with that, is that the pressure needed to pop a balloon is inversely proportional to it's diameter. It's much easier to pop a big one, than a tiny one.Audley Strange wrote:Can't we just sheath the moon inside a large balloon and then inflate it with gasses?
And the diameter of the Moon is pretty big.
So the balloon would pop with just the tiniest pressure inside. And anyway, rubber doesn't stretch when it's deep frozen. It just shatters.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Robert_S
- Cookie Monster
- Posts: 13416
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
- About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
- Location: Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
You guys play Bumble Puppy for keeps!FBM wrote:It depends. Do you mean standing on one of the poles, at the equator, or somewhere between? I think you get slightly different answers depending on which you mean. If you're on a pole and the moon has no wobble or wind, it should come straight back down. If you're at the equator shooting straight up from the center of mass, it should come down straight behind you. Between the poles and equator, though, you would have to work it out with trig and calculus or something, which I can't even begin to do.JacksSmirkingRevenge wrote:Question- If you were on the inside wall of a collossal rotating cylinder and fired an arrow straight up (that is, through or toward the rotational axis) where would it come down?....Where it was fired from?...Or does it depend how 'high' it were fired?
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
-Mr P
The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
On the inside of a cylinder, firing at the axis, the arrow would have the force of the bow working one way, and the spin of the cylinder working another. The resultant vector would be a sum of those actions.
Now, for fun, what would the archer see the arrow do?
Now, for fun, what would the archer see the arrow do?
- Mysturji
- Clint Eastwood
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
- About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
- Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
Escape velocity is only applicable if you're going ballistic.Gawdzilla wrote:Um, escape velocity...Thumpalumpacus wrote:But by that time, we'll be further along in our orbit. We will have left the gases behind.Gawdzilla wrote:Um, no. The gases wouldn't have escape velocity, so they'd re-enter after a while.Thumpalumpacus wrote:We should just build the smokestacks of our coal-fired plants high enough that they vent directly to space. That should solve the problem.
Really, this can work.
Didn't you see "The Mouse on the Moon"?
Travel straight up from Earth's surface at a constant 1 MPH, and eventually you will escape.
So all we is a big fan at the bottom of each smokestack.
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
IDMD2Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
I am a twit.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
Think about that.Mysturji wrote:Escape velocity is only applicable if you're going ballistic.Gawdzilla wrote:Um, escape velocity...Thumpalumpacus wrote:But by that time, we'll be further along in our orbit. We will have left the gases behind.Gawdzilla wrote:Um, no. The gases wouldn't have escape velocity, so they'd re-enter after a while.Thumpalumpacus wrote:We should just build the smokestacks of our coal-fired plants high enough that they vent directly to space. That should solve the problem.
Really, this can work.
Didn't you see "The Mouse on the Moon"?
Travel straight up from Earth's surface at a constant 1 MPH, and eventually you will escape.
So all we is a big fan at the bottom of each smokestack.
- Mysturji
- Clint Eastwood
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:08 pm
- About me: Downloading an app to my necktop
- Location: http://tinyurl.com/c9o35ny
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
Adding orbital velocity by keeping the same geographical location directly beneath you would make "eventually" much shorter, but it's not necessary if you have enough time and patience. Earth isn't the only thing in space with gravity. Eventually, you will stray into another gravity well.Gawdzilla wrote:Think about that.Mysturji wrote:Escape velocity is only applicable if you're going ballistic.Gawdzilla wrote:Um, escape velocity...
Didn't you see "The Mouse on the Moon"?
Travel straight up from Earth's surface at a constant 1 MPH, and eventually you will escape.
So all we is a big fan at the bottom of each smokestack.
Edit: fix quotes.
Sir Figg Newton wrote:If I have seen further than others, it is only because I am surrounded by midgets.
IDMD2Cormac wrote:Doom predictors have been with humans right through our history. They are like the proverbial stopped clock - right twice a day, but not due to the efficacy of their prescience.
I am a twit.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
But the gases wouldn't have the escape velocity to start with, and no means of increasing their speed. Gravity would decay them back to Earth in due time, and they'd have to go through the ozone layer to get there.
- Clinton Huxley
- 19th century monkeybitch.
- Posts: 23739
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
All you need is several trillion trillion tonnes of "slow air". It's too lazy to reach escape velocity.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
http://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"
AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
Only for a short smoke stack. If the smoke stack was long enough to reach geostationary orbit distance, the gases would just keep orbiting the Earth without falling back. If it was even longer, they would float away.Gawdzilla wrote:But the gases wouldn't have the escape velocity to start with, and no means of increasing their speed. Gravity would decay them back to Earth in due time, and they'd have to go through the ozone layer to get there.
That's because they have the velocity of the spin of the Earth.
The smokestack would in effect be a space elevator.
Might cost a bit to build though.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
Remember that a "space elevator" can't be too long, and that distance, IIRC, isn't long enough for your project.mistermack wrote:Only for a short smoke stack. If the smoke stack was long enough to reach geostationary orbit distance, the gases would just keep orbiting the Earth without falling back. If it was even longer, they would float away.Gawdzilla wrote:But the gases wouldn't have the escape velocity to start with, and no means of increasing their speed. Gravity would decay them back to Earth in due time, and they'd have to go through the ozone layer to get there.
The smokestack would in effect be a space elevator.
Might cost a bit to build though.
Plus we'd be pumping our atmosphere into interplanetary space. Baby-bathwater.
- mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
You'd have to put more carbon into the atmosphere to power the pumping, than you would get rid of.Gawdzilla wrote: Remember that a "space elevator" can't be too long, and that distance, IIRC, isn't long enough for your project.
Plus we'd be pumping our atmosphere into interplanetary space. Baby-bathwater.
I don't think it's a good idea.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Our moon with atmosphere?
True, pumping would be necessary, the gases would slow down due to contact with the cold "stack" as well. Pumping against a column of gases hundreds of miles long, a fluid gas column, would be a bit difficult.mistermack wrote:You'd have to put more carbon into the atmosphere to power the pumping, than you would get rid of.Gawdzilla wrote: Remember that a "space elevator" can't be too long, and that distance, IIRC, isn't long enough for your project.
Plus we'd be pumping our atmosphere into interplanetary space. Baby-bathwater.
I don't think it's a good idea.
And 90% of stack gases is plain old air.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests