Suppose it was possible to attach a rope from the Earth to a space station.
Would it be possible to climb said rope from the ground into outer space? I have a vague understanding of rockets needing to 'punch' through the atmosphere in order to reach outer space, but that involves flinging hundreds of tonnes of metal from Earth's gravity. If it's just a guy, climbing a rope, is it theoretically possible to slowly pass through the atmosphere?
Assume also that our climber is a beast and can also carry any oxygen/food/spacesuit/whatever is needed for survival.
Pic included for clarity.
>>8118497
Yes, it's possible, assuming all the many assumptions needed.
No, there's nothing to "punch through". Real life isn't Spaceballs.
Also all of the other stuff you believe is wrong.
>>8118500
>Also all of the other stuff you believe is wrong.
Please explain.
>>8118501
space station would have its orbit fucked by you climbing up it and without help it would fall
it would need to burn fuel to keep itself aligned. Fuel that would be better spent just launching your dumb ass on a new rocket
>>8118506
Thanks for your replies.
>>8118497
You could only if the space station is in geosynchronous orbit. You could theoretically have a large enough mass there and have the space station connected to the rope, but it really wouldn't be orbiting anymore and it would be going slower, so it would be partial gravity.
>>8118501
Since you're a moron on 4chan, it's very likely you believe that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, Obama was born in Kenya, the moon landing was faked, aliens are in Area 51, the Sandy Hook shooting was faked, etc. Basically all of the loony conspiracy theories someone would expect out of a low-end mentally ill idiot from /r/conspiracy.
>>8118543
I don't believe in any of those things. Do you have anything of worth to contribute?
>>8118547
>I don't believe in any of those things.
Then what are you doing here? Get off of my website, normie.
>>8118551
OP what you're describing is essentially a space elevator. It's a very much real concept and a lot of people believe it to be the future of space exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
You wouldn't be a ble to attach a rope to the ISS for example, because it orbits the earth much faster than the earth's rotation and you wouls quickly end up flinging it to the ground, BUT if you have a station in geosynchronous orbit and attack a rope to it going all the way to earth you could very much climb all the way there. Atmospheric drag is irrelevant in this case..
>>8118565
Thanks for the reading material anon. I'm surprised to see this is a 'real thing' as it does seem more practical to simply launch someone into space, as another anon mentioned.
>>8118565
>attack a rope to it going all the way to earth you could very much climb all the way there
the station would either be destroyed or accelerate towards earth if you did that. you'd waste much more fuel keeping that thing up than you would just sending a human in the first place. it'd also be swinging rather violently and it's 100 kilometers to the edge of space (36,000 kilometers for geosynchronous satellites). So the probability of you being able to climb up there is almost as low as the probability of you not being a faggot.
>>8118574
Conventional rockets are inefficient, we've known that for ages.
The real problem with a space elevator is finding the material with enough tensile strength to allow contruction of a cable this size, and that material simply doesn't exist yet. That and the knowledge that if you fail, millions of tons of cable will come crashing down on potentially inhabited areas, causing worldwide disasters.
>>8118578
>So the probability of you being able to climb up there is almost as low as the probability of you not being a faggot.
top fucking kek
>>8118497
Actually it would be fucking hot up there
>>8118497
yes you could assuming the space stations orbit didn't fuck up the rope's positioning.
It would be quite a climb though
>>8118497
It's called a Skyhook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_%28structure%29
>>8120031
Only in direct sunlight
>>8118506
Haha, no. Think of ball connected to a rope when you spin around.
>>8118506
What if the rope is set exactly at the magnetic pole?
>>8118543
>climate change
the science of climatology majors, the only major more facile than biology
>>8121447
You're an idiot, what's holding the spacestation in place (in relation to r)? it's the the forces being exactly equal (well not exactly it still has to make corrections every once in a while), someone adding another force, in the same axis no less, will certainely change ruin someone's day.
>>8121937
what are you talking about??? Assuming you could attach a rope to a space station and leave it hanging, the space station should be placed on the same level as the sattelites used in TV industry, so it doesn't move relatively to us. The force which would be "holding" space station in place is gravity, you moron.
A much better question.
Why is there a cloud layer within a mushroom cloud? does the atmosphere really form somewhat distinct layers, rather than continuous regions?
>>8122480
Literally wikipedia mushroom cloud. It's all there.
i think if balloons can make it up there so can you
