View Full Version : Feasibility of Space Elevator?
ChipWrecked
09-22-2005, 10:52 AM
I would like to know if any of the science / engineering types believe a space elevator is something that ever will happen, or should happen. If so, what do you believe is the time frame? Seems to me that carbon fiber tech is advancing to the point that we ought to have something strong and light enough to do the job before long.
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to know if any of the science / engineering types believe a space elevator is something that ever will happen, or should happen. If so, what do you believe is the time frame? Seems to me that carbon fiber tech is advancing to the point that we ought to have something strong and light enough to do the job before long.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing? Ignoring all technical issues, who could ever in the foreseeable future afford it to the point that it would be beneficial to build and operate?
jakethebake
09-22-2005, 12:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing? Ignoring all technical issues, who could ever in the foreseeable future afford it to the point that it would be beneficial to build and operate?
[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you missed this. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=3450413&Fo rum=f20&Words=YSSCKY&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=34 42729&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1& newerval=1&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypr ev=#Post3450413) /images/graemlins/grin.gif
ChipWrecked
09-22-2005, 01:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
jakethebake
09-22-2005, 02:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
What was this estimate based on other than the top of your head?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
What was this estimate based on other than the top of your head?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing. But think about the size of a B-2 bomber and the size of a structure needed for a space elevator. Six degrees of magnitude difference is a fair initial guess.
If you want more exact, say the height needed is 15000k, and a B-2 bomber has a wingspan of about 70m and it takes two B-2's per 70m, thus 15,000,000/70*2 = 430,000 B-2s (within an order of magnitude of my WAG).
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 03:38 PM
there will be a functioning space elevator in roughly 15 years from now.
[ QUOTE ]
there will be a functioning space elevator in roughly 15 years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's funny.
Name the bet, as high as you want, and I'll call it.
SomethingClever
09-22-2005, 03:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're way off. The whole point of the special material is that it is insanely strong. The threads that support the elevator don't need to be that thick. And the platform itself won't be that much extra material.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 04:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there will be a functioning space elevator in roughly 15 years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's funny.
Name the bet, as high as you want, and I'll call it.
[/ QUOTE ]
$1,000. The term "roughly" will be defined as give or take 15 years /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're way off. The whole point of the special material is that it is insanely strong. The threads that support the elevator don't need to be that thick. And the platform itself won't be that much extra material.
[/ QUOTE ]
Carbon fiber is not "insanely strong", nor is it a "special material". I used the B-2 because its structure is largely carbon fibre-based. How many B-2's worth of carbon fibre do you think is needed for a 10000+km elevator? If the answer is just say 1000 versus 1,000,000 then that is still way too expensive to be feasible any time soon.
[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring all technical issues, who could ever in the foreseeable future afford it to the point that it would be beneficial to build and operate?
[/ QUOTE ]
$10 billion and a decade? (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there will be a functioning space elevator in roughly 15 years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's funny.
Name the bet, as high as you want, and I'll call it.
[/ QUOTE ]
$1,000. The term "roughly" will be defined as give or take 15 years /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I call.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring all technical issues, who could ever in the foreseeable future afford it to the point that it would be beneficial to build and operate?
[/ QUOTE ]
$10 billion and a decade? (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html)
[/ QUOTE ]
From article: Given the far stronger-than-steel ribbon of carbon nanotubes, a space elevator could be up within a decade. "There's no real serious stumbling block to this," Edwards explained.
Yeah, okay. Boston has spent more money and taken longer on the Big Dig construction project, but these guys think they will have the money, technology, and political/commercial backing to build a 35000km elevator in a decade. Meanwhile we enter the third decade of the F-22 fighter project, which still hasn't produced a single jet on operational status.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 04:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're way off. The whole point of the special material is that it is insanely strong. The threads that support the elevator don't need to be that thick. And the platform itself won't be that much extra material.
[/ QUOTE ]
Carbon fiber is not "insanely strong", nor is it a "special material". I used the B-2 because its structure is largely carbon fibre-based. How many B-2's worth of carbon fibre do you think is needed for a 10000+km elevator? If the answer is just say 1000 versus 1,000,000 then that is still way too expensive to be feasible any time soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
actually it will be built out of carbon nanotube ribbons. They are already being manufactured in america and japan and are much stronger than steel. and we are not that far away from actually building the thing:
"Once secure, a platform-based free-electron laser system is used to beam energy to photocell-laden "climbers". These are automated devices that ride the initial ribbon skyward. Each climber adds more and more ribbon to the first, thereby increasing the cable's overall strength. Some two-and-a-half years later, and using nearly 300 climbers, a first space elevator capable of supporting over 20-tons (20,000-kilograms) is ready for service."
AleoMagus
09-22-2005, 04:18 PM
This will almost certainly not happen ever. Or anytime in the next century anyways.
The thing is, even if you could build an elevator that high, it is not like once you were in space you could just put on a space suit and start floating away or build spaceships with materials you got up there.
The reason that astronauts experience zero G has nothing to do with being in space or being 'so far' away from the earth. the reason is because they are essentially in a constant state of falling, but are moving so fast that they continually fall over the horizon and appear to be 'floating' above the earth. If they were to come to a complete stop, they would immediately plummet back to earth.
In other words, you don't just need to build a giant elevator, you also need to accelerate to a great speed once you get up there. And if you are just using the elevator to get materials into space, you need to figure out a way for astronauts to pick it up while flying past at thousands of miles per hour.
So there is really no point even if you could build it.
A better question would be, how long till we have a functioning mass driver for which to propel objects into space. That or some other device which allows us to get an object into space whereby the fuel is not a part of the payload.
Regards
Brad S
lol - just read the link and the idea of the thousands of mile long cable elevator. interesting and not at all the naive idea I thought this thread was suggesting, though still perhaps not all that feasible in any near future.
I will say this. If something like this (or a mass driver) is ever built, I'd wager that it will be done commercially, and government operated programs like NASA or ESA will have nothing to do with it. The Gov't will have a hard time ever pitching an idea with that big a pricetag on space travel. Investors, however, may see the ultimate payoff and get the job done. If I were bill gates, my mass driver would already be built.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how much carbon fiber would be needed to build such a thing?
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, I'd estimate maybe the equivalent of 1 million B-2 bombers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're way off. The whole point of the special material is that it is insanely strong. The threads that support the elevator don't need to be that thick. And the platform itself won't be that much extra material.
[/ QUOTE ]
Carbon fiber is not "insanely strong", nor is it a "special material". I used the B-2 because its structure is largely carbon fibre-based. How many B-2's worth of carbon fibre do you think is needed for a 10000+km elevator? If the answer is just say 1000 versus 1,000,000 then that is still way too expensive to be feasible any time soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
actually it will be built out of carbon nanotube ribbons. They are already being manufactured in america and japan and are much stronger than steel. and we are not that far away from actually building the thing:
"Once secure, a platform-based free-electron laser system is used to beam energy to photocell-laden "climbers". These are automated devices that ride the initial ribbon skyward. Each climber adds more and more ribbon to the first, thereby increasing the cable's overall strength. Some two-and-a-half years later, and using nearly 300 climbers, a first space elevator capable of supporting over 20-tons (20,000-kilograms) is ready for service."
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm aware of the strength of carbon-based composites. "Stronger than steel" and "insanely strong" have different connotations to me as a material scientist.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 04:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there will be a functioning space elevator in roughly 15 years from now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's funny.
Name the bet, as high as you want, and I'll call it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to get in on this one, too.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 04:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This will almost certainly not happen ever. Or anytime in the next century anyways.
The thing is, even if you could build an elevator that high, it is not like once you were in space you could just put on a space suit and start floating away or build spaceships with materials you got up there.
The reason that astronauts experience zero G has nothing to do with being in space of being 'so far' away from the earth. the reason is because they are essentially in a constant state of falling, but are moving so fast that they continually fall over the horizon and appear to be 'floating' above the earth. If they were to come to a complete stop, they would immediately plummet back to earth.
In other words, you don't just need to build a giant elevator, you also need to accelerate to a great speed once you get up there. And if you are just using the elevator to get materials into space, you need to figure out a way for astronauts to pick it up while flying past at thousands of miles per hour.
So there is really no point even if you could build it.
A better question would be, how long till we have a functioning mass driver for which to propel objects into space. That or some other device which allows us to get an object into space whereby the fuel is not a part of the payload.
Regards
Brad S
[/ QUOTE ]
do some reaserch before making retarded claims buddy. The space elevator would actually be in geosynchronous Orbit w/ the earth.
Geo-synch-ron-ous o-r-b-i-t. (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/geosync.html) sound it out.
SomethingClever
09-22-2005, 04:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Carbon fiber is not "insanely strong", nor is it a "special material".
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. However, the space elevator won't be built out of carbon fiber. I assumed everyone knew it will be built out of nanotubes.
nanotubes (http://www.research.ibm.com/nanoscience/nanotubes.html)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This will almost certainly not happen ever. Or anytime in the next century anyways.
The thing is, even if you could build an elevator that high, it is not like once you were in space you could just put on a space suit and start floating away or build spaceships with materials you got up there.
The reason that astronauts experience zero G has nothing to do with being in space of being 'so far' away from the earth. the reason is because they are essentially in a constant state of falling, but are moving so fast that they continually fall over the horizon and appear to be 'floating' above the earth. If they were to come to a complete stop, they would immediately plummet back to earth.
In other words, you don't just need to build a giant elevator, you also need to accelerate to a great speed once you get up there. And if you are just using the elevator to get materials into space, you need to figure out a way for astronauts to pick it up while flying past at thousands of miles per hour.
So there is really no point even if you could build it.
A better question would be, how long till we have a functioning mass driver for which to propel objects into space. That or some other device which allows us to get an object into space whereby the fuel is not a part of the payload.
Regards
Brad S
[/ QUOTE ]
do some reaserch before making retarded claims buddy. The space elevator would actually be in geosynchronous Orbit w/ the earth.
Geo-synch-ron-ous o-r-b-i-t. (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/geosync.html) sound it out.
[/ QUOTE ]
How does it get into geosynchronous orbit? You can't just build a long rope and it floats up into orbit. There's a lot more to this problem than you give credit for.
jakethebake
09-22-2005, 04:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm aware of the strength of carbon-based composites. "Stronger than steel" and "insanely strong" have different connotations to me as a material scientist.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know anything about a company called Zoltek?
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 04:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This will almost certainly not happen ever. Or anytime in the next century anyways.
The thing is, even if you could build an elevator that high, it is not like once you were in space you could just put on a space suit and start floating away or build spaceships with materials you got up there.
The reason that astronauts experience zero G has nothing to do with being in space of being 'so far' away from the earth. the reason is because they are essentially in a constant state of falling, but are moving so fast that they continually fall over the horizon and appear to be 'floating' above the earth. If they were to come to a complete stop, they would immediately plummet back to earth.
In other words, you don't just need to build a giant elevator, you also need to accelerate to a great speed once you get up there. And if you are just using the elevator to get materials into space, you need to figure out a way for astronauts to pick it up while flying past at thousands of miles per hour.
So there is really no point even if you could build it.
A better question would be, how long till we have a functioning mass driver for which to propel objects into space. That or some other device which allows us to get an object into space whereby the fuel is not a part of the payload.
Regards
Brad S
[/ QUOTE ]
do some reaserch before making retarded claims buddy. The space elevator would actually be in geosynchronous Orbit w/ the earth.
Geo-synch-ron-ous o-r-b-i-t. (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/geosync.html) sound it out.
[/ QUOTE ]
How does it get into geosynchronous orbit? You can't just build a long rope and it floats up into orbit. There's a lot more to this problem than you give credit for.
[/ QUOTE ]
goto google and do a search for space elevator. There is plenty of info about how we would build such a thing (and it is quite possible given a huge budget).
AleoMagus
09-22-2005, 04:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
do some reaserch before making retarded claims buddy. The space elevator would actually be in geosynchronous Orbit w/ the earth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I just figured this guy was another person who didn't understand that being in spce alone is not enough to float around at a constant point above the earth.
That and I guess I just didn't assume that the elevator he was suggesting was....
over 20,000 miles above the earth!!!!!!!
especially when the typical altitude of a shuttle flight is only about 1/100 of this.
Regards
Brad S
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 04:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
it is quite possible given a huge budget
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry. NASA's budget for the next several years is all tied up in the CEV, much to my employment delight.
[ QUOTE ]
(and it is quite possible given a huge budget).
[/ QUOTE ]
jakethebake
09-22-2005, 04:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
goto google and do a search for space elevator. There is plenty of info about how we would build such a thing (and it is quite possible given a huge budget).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm convinced. It's on the Interweb afterall.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 04:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is quite possible given a huge budget
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry. NASA's budget for the next several years is all tied up in the CEV, much to my employment delight.
[/ QUOTE ]
ill bet that some private corporations that could profit from this would throw down. NASA has spent or plans to spend some money on this to my knowledge, although im sure not enough.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 04:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is quite possible given a huge budget
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry. NASA's budget for the next several years is all tied up in the CEV, much to my employment delight.
[/ QUOTE ]
ill bet that some private corporations that could profit from this would throw down. NASA has spent or plans to spend some money on this to my knowledge, although im sure not enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
The US government is the only entity with a budget large enough to do this, unless all of Europe went in on it together with, say Japan and Brazil and maybe some China. There is no private organization or any feasible consortium of private organizations that could take this on successfully.
jakethebake
09-22-2005, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is no private organization or any feasible consortium of private organizations that could take this on successfully.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I was thinking. It's probably a bigger budget than the next 20 years of corporate profits for the NYSE. I'm wondering how the govt would even finance it w/o serious inflation.
[ QUOTE ]
$10 billion and a decade? (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html)
[/ QUOTE ]
I now wish I had linked to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics). Mmmm, wiki.
A little research.
After reading the linked article quoting the feasibility within a decade, it should be noted that the authority giving this figure is Bradley Edwards, whos is director of the Institute for Scientific Research, Inc., which receives NASA contracts for such studies, and he also has a book on the subject.
Thus, it is reasonable that he would want to portray the scenario as optimistically as possible.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 05:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is quite possible given a huge budget
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry. NASA's budget for the next several years is all tied up in the CEV, much to my employment delight.
[/ QUOTE ]
ill bet that some private corporations that could profit from this would throw down. NASA has spent or plans to spend some money on this to my knowledge, although im sure not enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
The US government is the only entity with a budget large enough to do this, unless all of Europe went in on it together with, say Japan and Brazil and maybe some China. There is no private organization or any feasible consortium of private organizations that could take this on successfully.
[/ QUOTE ]
i read it is projected at $10 billion. I think microsoft could handle that /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
i read it is projected at $10 billion. I think microsoft could handle that /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
wiki quotes $40B. never trust initial estimates anyway as programs often are much more expensive in practice.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 05:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
A little research.
After reading the linked article quoting the feasibility within a decade, it should be noted that the authority giving this figure is Bradley Edwards, whos is director of the Institute for Scientific Research, Inc., which receives NASA contracts for such studies, and he also has a book on the subject.
Thus, it is reasonable that he would want to portray the scenario as optimistically as possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
that may be true.
Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!
09-22-2005, 05:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i read it is projected at $10 billion. I think microsoft could handle that /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
wiki quotes $40B. never trust initial estimates anyway as programs often are much more expensive in practice.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah i just read that lol.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-22-2005, 05:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i read it is projected at $10 billion. I think microsoft could handle that /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no way in hell you could design and build an operational space elevator for $10B. As a not-necessarily applicable, but still useful in comparison piece of data, the budget for Project Constellation (CEV) is projected at about $210B over the next 20 years. This is for a project based mostly on re-using existing Space Shuttle technology and design and other current technology. The space elevator is based on what is still future material technology.
hurlyburly
09-22-2005, 11:49 PM
We may be close, but there are other details to consider. Like location (don't think it could be built on US soil, needs to be closer to the equator), security (and we thought the WTC was a big terrorist target), weather protection (it would probably need to be housed inside a mountainous complex that would be hurricane/tsunami proof). The tether itself would need to be sizable at the base and begin tapering once it reaches LEO.
Add in the socio-political requirements (it's not going to fall straight down in the event of a catostrophic failure, and it's long enough to wrap around the earth).
All that said, it's daunting, but it would be well worth it. The per pound cost for sending material to space would be pennies or less.
Patrick del Poker Grande
09-23-2005, 02:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
it's not going to fall straight down in the event of a catostrophic failure, and it's long enough to wrap around the earth
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the tidal wave (or tsunami) it'll create when it falls in the ocean.
ChipWrecked
09-23-2005, 04:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(don't think it could be built on US soil, needs to be closer to the equator)
[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall that Arthur C. Clarke said Sri Lanka would be an ideal spot. Close to the equator and something about how the earth bulges in some areas. I guess the bulge is closer to space. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
jakethebake
09-23-2005, 08:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
i read it is projected at $10 billion. I think microsoft could handle that /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Again. If it's on the Interweb it must be true. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
ChromePony
09-23-2005, 01:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Putting physics aside the toughest challenge has been finding a super-strong cable material.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its funny how much easier things get when you put physics aside...why didnt we think of this sooner??
I think the relevant question is, who the hell wants to go on an elevator ride that's 62,000 miles long?
jakethebake
09-23-2005, 04:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the relevant question is, who the hell wants to go on an elevator ride that's 62,000 miles long?
[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno, but my 3 year old would like to volunteer to push the button.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the relevant question is, who the hell wants to go on an elevator ride that's 62,000 miles long?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, but the owners of the Muzak corporation must be drooling. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
SomethingClever
09-23-2005, 05:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's not going to fall straight down in the event of a catostrophic failure, and it's long enough to wrap around the earth
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the tidal wave (or tsunami) it'll create when it falls in the ocean.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientist, but wouldn't it go flying off into space if the connection is severed?
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientist, but wouldn't it go flying off into space if the connection is severed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I'm said rocket scientist, but he means the part that's tethered to the ground.
[ QUOTE ]
This will almost certainly not happen ever. Or anytime in the next century anyways.
[/ QUOTE ]
after we finally built these damn things
http://www.govisland.com/Images/historic_maps/wright%20brothers%20take%20off%20from%20GI.jpg
it only took 55 years to
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/History/Sputnik1LaunchNovosti.jpg
the only way a space elevator doesn't get built is if one of these following two things happens first:
a) something better gets built
b) apocalypse
SomethingClever
09-23-2005, 06:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientist, but wouldn't it go flying off into space if the connection is severed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I'm said rocket scientist, but he means the part that's tethered to the ground.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I guess it depends where the connection is severed. But the most likely place for it to be severed would be closer to earth than to the top part, for obvious reasons.
Wouldn't the majority fly off into space, leaving just the small part below the sever to fall to earth?
Jingleheimer
09-23-2005, 08:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientist, but wouldn't it go flying off into space if the connection is severed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I'm said rocket scientist, but he means the part that's tethered to the ground.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I guess it depends where the connection is severed. But the most likely place for it to be severed would be closer to earth than to the top part, for obvious reasons.
Wouldn't the majority fly off into space, leaving just the small part below the sever to fall to earth?
[/ QUOTE ]
You could design for this. Obviously the bottom of the elevator would be much thicker than the top, and there would be a counterweight slightly beyond the geosynchronous radius.
Smart people have thought about this, and there is a lot of literature out there (some of it not even by crackpots) which indicates the feasibility if you have a material with a dream strength-to-weight ratio like diamond (enter nanotech zealots) or carbon nanotubes. The problem with nanotubes is that we can't make them in bulk right now (I think no plant can even make 1lb/day right now) and you can't make them long enough either (1cm max so far)- you certainly can't envision anything very long made from anything that short. And it's not an inevitability to make really really long nanotubes either; these are single molecules. It's not like process optimization.
I think a space elevator is a very long way off. I'd wager any amount of money that one won't be built in 30 years.
J
Jingleheimer
09-23-2005, 08:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(don't think it could be built on US soil, needs to be closer to the equator)
[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall that Arthur C. Clarke said Sri Lanka would be an ideal spot. Close to the equator and something about how the earth bulges in some areas. I guess the bulge is closer to space. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
It's got to be a geostationary orbit- you can't have that over anyplace other than the equator.
MtnDave
09-23-2005, 08:44 PM
Get Paul Allen interested. Right up his alley.
jakethebake
09-23-2005, 09:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Get Paul Allen interested. Right up his alley.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. He's a pipe dream expert.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.