Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 231 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#4380 11/04/05 04:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
"Forget the roar of rocketry and those bone jarring liftoffs, the elevator would be a smooth 62,000-mile (100,000-kilometer) ride up a long cable. Payloads can shimmy up the Earth-to-space cable, experiencing no large launch forces, slowly climbing from one atmosphere to a vacuum.

Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, Venus, the asteroids and beyond - they are routinely accessible via the space elevator. And for all its promise and grandeur, this mega-project is made practical by the tiniest of technologies - carbon nanotubes."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

This article is from 2002. Is this for real?

Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
.
#4381 11/04/05 08:03 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
K
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
K
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 334
The speculation is certainly for real, whether the project ever will be is another matter.

Space elevators have been talked about for years. I think it may have been Arthur C. Clarke who first posited the idea.

One of the problems (apart from the engineering which is currently out of our league) is the likely cost/benefit analysis, which doesn't make sense at this time. Perhaps if they discover oil (or politically unsavoury regimes) among the asteroids it will be fast-tracked.

#4382 11/04/05 06:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Buncha crap. Even if you had a material with sufficient tensile strength to support its own weight as a straight line beanstalk, it wouldn't work.

1) The minimum energy curve to geosynchronous orbit is not nearly a straight line. The only part of the beanstalk in equilibrium orbit is its distal end.

2) No vertical runs of electrical conductors are allowed. A conductor cutting through the magnetosphere at even modest velocities is a BAD THING re Lenz' Law. Shorting the atmosphere to ground is a BAD THING.

3) What will power the elevator? 23,500 miles at 100 mph is 10 days of travel. No long vertical wires are allowed.

4) What will you use as radiation shielding as you pass through the van Allen radiation belts? Shielding is is dead weight.

5) What will protect the beanstalk itself against van Allen radiation degradation and solar hard UV? Progressive material degradation or extra weight from shielding instantly dooms any beanstalk.

6) How much lofted stuff are we talking? A pissy little pound/foot is 62,000 tons. The Space Scuttle has a real world net payload of 20 tons. 3100 launches? That is a direct transportation cost of $(US)1.7 trillion, plus overhead. The cost of the stuff itself, plus labor and health insurance, is extra.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#4383 11/08/05 05:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5