this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
40 points (95.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

45478 readers
714 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As I understand it (see: not at all), if you leave a spaceship with no suit on, you'd get baked like Marie Curie's ovaries from the radiation. It's mainly our atmosphere that protects us from most of the nastiest stuff. Would a giant cable reaching from Earth all the way to a platform outside the atmosphere become dangerously-radioactive over time? And if so, would that eventually cause the entire planet to get radioactive over hundreds of years? Kinda like if the hole in the Ozone layer were replaced with a Mario pipe.

And if that is the case, maybe we could forget the elevator aspect of it and just aim for a free eternal source of radioactive energy, like a really shitty Dyson sphere ๐Ÿ‘€

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] mech@feddit.org 3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

That's the neat thing about geostationary orbit. If the station at the upper end has enough mass, its own centrifugal force keeps it anchored in its orbit.

[โ€“] MotoAsh@piefed.social 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's passed geostationary orbit. Geostationary orbit is balanced, but it needs centrifugal force pulling out. So, you need to be going faster than the orbit wants, hence, further out.

[โ€“] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Except that you would drag it out of geostationary orbit every time you used it? Like no matter how heavy it is your still moving it closer every time you pull on the cable. You would need to constantly thrust equivalent to the mass of the cable and whatever the cable is pulling. At that point aren't you still basically just launching shit?

The more you think about it the dumber it gets. You would need to constantly move reaction mass to to the platform to create that thrust, but you'd have to use that thrust to counter the mass that you are bringing up. It's all the same problems as conventional rocketry.

[โ€“] mech@feddit.org 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Think of earth as a rotating bowling ball, with a string attached, and a tennis ball attached to the other end of the string. The craft you launch is an ant walking along the string.
Its legs push against the string, but that's nothing compared to the rotation of the bowling ball that keeps the string tight.
Technically, the ant's climbing will slow down the rotation of the bowling ball over time, but this won't have a noticeable effect for many millennia.

[โ€“] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Right, except that a bowling ball weights about 6kg and a tennis ball weighs about sixty grams, so we would only need to build a platform that weighs 1% of the total mass of earth.

[โ€“] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 15 minutes ago* (last edited 13 minutes ago) (1 children)

It needs to weigh enough that it counters the momentum/drag of the cable plus the net of whatever mass is going up. Keep in mind that cars going down add to that overall value while cars going up subtract. Also, the general opinion is for the station/anchor to be slightly above geosync so the net effect of the orbit on the station is to be pulling away from the earth (there is some wiggle room depending on how robust your earth anchor is and the mechanics of your tether with respect to tension vs. compression, but most models plan for a little net lift). In other words, you also attach to an anchor on the earth (which could just be a chunk of bedrock) to counteract that net force. Since the net force of the tether (not counting the earth tether) would be away from earth, any net loss of momentum would be regained from the earth's spin (which happens whenever we launch a rocket right now). You could also have a spool at either end to maintain the desired tension on the tether while accounting for slight elevation changes due to net momentum loss or gain. On top of all that, the space anchor mass isn't really dependent on the mass of the earth so much as it is on the net amount of mass being lifted or lowered to the earth and the amount of time you want to wait to return to it's desired orbital altitude. And finally, if the tether was severed only the part whose center of gravity was below geostationary orbit would actually fall to earth - the rest would leave orbit.

[โ€“] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 points 12 minutes ago (1 children)

My point is that it was a bad analogy because that's exactly what it is.

[โ€“] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 24 seconds ago

How is it a bad analogy? You seem to be treating it like a scale model, which i don't think was the intention. Moreover, most of the effects map over fine.