[Fwd: Re: To space without rockets ?]

Kennita Watson (kwatson@netcom.com)
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:48:42 +0000


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------42CE1E10E3C36767F507104A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This message looped back for some unknown reason. Let's try again.

Kennita

> Berrie wrote:
> > Kennita: what I don't understand is, why when it's length is
> > going up, the same has to be true for the diameter. Do you need
> > this for the strength?
>
> If you want a stronger structure, you either build it out of stronger
> material or, if you have no stronger material (available at an acceptable
> price), you build it thicker. Do you think people building multi-story
> parking lots would take up valuable parking space with those big fat
> pillars otherwise? And would suspension bridges use big fat cables
> instead of slender ones?
>
> > Also, what do you think of the "open"-structure.
> > Is that still not wind-proof :-)
> > I can't imagine the forces on the structure, but isn't there any
> > material today that could be woven to a "net", that can stand
> > these winds. Is it also a particular height, were these winds are
> > at top-speed. ?
>
> An open structure would probably help, because you can often get just
> as much strength with less material by arranging it in an open lattice
> (the Eiffel Tower is an example, as are geodesic domes).
>
> I don't know about the top-speed height, but remember that the air
> gets thinner higher up, so even if the winds are faster there may be
> fewer molecules trying to push your structure over. I'm not sure the
> analogy is exact (I'm sure I'll be told), but I'd imagine (say)
> that rain gets going pretty fast by the time it falls a thousand feet
> or so, but half an hour's worth doesn't push on you nearly as hard as
> one large bucket of water tossed on you from a few feet away in one
> second (she says, remembering her last white-water rafting trip).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Kennita
--------------42CE1E10E3C36767F507104A
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <>
Received: from mailhub2.home.com ([24.2.0.26]) by ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA9913
for <kwatson1@mail.snvl1.sfba.home.com>;
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:44:44 -0800
Received: from mx2.home.com ([24.2.0.31]) by mailhub2.home.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA9571
for <kwatson1@home.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:44:43 -0800
Received: from netcom18.netcom.com (netcom18.netcom.com [192.100.81.131])
by mx2.home.com (8.8.5/8.8.5-AtHome) with ESMTP id JAA22396
for <kwatson1@home.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maxwell.kumo.com (gen101ip126.cadvision.com [207.228.101.126])
by netcom18.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id JAA19444
for <kwatson@netcom.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost)
by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with internal id LAA00376;
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:19 -0700
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:19 -0700
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@maxwell.kumo.com>
Message-Id: <199710281845.LAA00376@maxwell.kumo.com>
To: <kwatson@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="LAA00376.878064319/maxwell.kumo.com"
Subject: Returned mail: Local configuration error
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--LAA00376.878064319/maxwell.kumo.com

The original message was received at Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:18 -0700
from siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<extropians@extropy.com>

----- Transcript of session follows -----
553 extropy.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
554 <extropians@extropy.com>... Local configuration error

--LAA00376.878064319/maxwell.kumo.com
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; maxwell.kumo.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:18 -0700

Final-Recipient: RFC822; extropians@extropy.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.5.0
Remote-MTA: DNS; extropy.com
Last-Attempt-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:19 -0700

--LAA00376.878064319/maxwell.kumo.com
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <kwatson@netcom.com>
Received: from ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com (siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66])
by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00374
for <extropians@extropy.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:18 -0700
Received: from netcom.com ([24.1.1.26]) by ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com
(Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA568
for <extropians@extropy.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:06:19 -0800
Message-ID: <3455AB42.BC10D869@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:08:25 +0000
From: Kennita Watson <kwatson@netcom.com>
Organization: @Home Network
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03C-AtHome0402 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: To space without rockets ?
References: <199710281300.OAA17378@triton.worldonline.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Berrie wrote:
> Kennita: what I don't understand is, why when it's length is
> going up, the same has to be true for the diameter. Do you need
> this for the strength?

If you want a stronger structure, you either build it out of stronger
material or, if you have no stronger material (available at an acceptable
price), you build it thicker. Do you think people building multi-story
parking lots would take up valuable parking space with those big fat
pillars otherwise? And would suspension bridges use big fat cables
instead of slender ones?

> Also, what do you think of the "open"-structure.
> Is that still not wind-proof :-)
> I can't imagine the forces on the structure, but isn't there any
> material today that could be woven to a "net", that can stand
> these winds. Is it also a particular height, were these winds are
> at top-speed. ?

An open structure would probably help, because you can often get just
as much strength with less material by arranging it in an open lattice
(the Eiffel Tower is an example, as are geodesic domes).

I don't know about the top-speed height, but remember that the air
gets thinner higher up, so even if the winds are faster there may be
fewer molecules trying to push your structure over. I'm not sure the
analogy is exact (I'm sure I'll be told), but I'd imagine (say)
that rain gets going pretty fast by the time it falls a thousand feet
or so, but half an hour's worth doesn't push on you nearly as hard as
one large bucket of water tossed on you from a few feet away in one
second (she says, remembering her last white-water rafting trip).

Hope this helps,
Kennita

--LAA00376.878064319/maxwell.kumo.com--

--------------42CE1E10E3C36767F507104A--