Double those numbers is a better approximation, but the problem with the orbital speed is the same regardless. You don't just "park" in orbit. You need to be going close to 8 km/sec. The "formula" I had to use to break in the Juniors in a design class I participated in was this:russ_watters said:That's something I dealth with, but didn't explain: the space shuttle orbits at about 100 miles, iirc. 60 miles will get you an X-prize or a pair of astronaut's wings, but its not really worth anything.
UP != Orbit
FAST = Orbit!
Good question. It's of the same order of magnitude... of that I'm sure.Enigma's the astro, so I'm sure he can tell you, but I think it takes a similar (smaller?) amount of energy to get to the moon.
The main problem with this idea is the following:
You can't have an object with suborbital speed and just suspend it in place using rockets. The fuel requirements for something like that are absolutely astronomical. For pete's sake, just to get to orbit once with the best fuels possible, you need to have over 9kg of fuel for every kg you put up there. Helecopters and planes take advantage of aerodynamics and are made of some of the lightest materials known to man, and they STILL can only operate for a few hours before refueling.
You're proposing "hanging" a multi-kiloton pipe up from nothing. I'm sorry. There isn't enough fuel in the whole world for that idea to be feasable.