Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Space elevator again

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 1:02:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.extremetech.com...

http://www.virginiaedition.com...

Predicted by a study and review from the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a space elevator could be build by 2035. I doubt that. I believe one could be built this century though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 2:57:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.

You're joking, right?

It has to be anchored to the earth, it just doesn't work without that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 1:02:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com...

http://www.virginiaedition.com...

Predicted by a study and review from the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a space elevator could be build by 2035. I doubt that. I believe one could be built this century though.

We don't even have the material capable of this type of structure in our toolkit. Let alone a means to produce the obscene quantities of it that would be required to make such a structure.

We will sooner have mass produced fusion reactors than a space elevator... And I will lay money on that.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 2:57:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.

You're joking, right?

It has to be anchored to the earth, it just doesn't work without that.

It sounds like it's going to be pretty heavy already anyway... does it blow away if we don't anchor it? I don't understand classical physics very much!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:46:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 5:34:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:02:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com...

http://www.virginiaedition.com...

Predicted by a study and review from the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a space elevator could be build by 2035. I doubt that. I believe one could be built this century though.

We don't even have the material capable of this type of structure in our toolkit. Let alone a means to produce the obscene quantities of it that would be required to make such a structure.

We will sooner have mass produced fusion reactors than a space elevator... And I will lay money on that.

Fusion is not an inevitability... at least not mass produced!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 6:31:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 5:46:59 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/26/2014 5:34:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:02:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com...

http://www.virginiaedition.com...

Predicted by a study and review from the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a space elevator could be build by 2035. I doubt that. I believe one could be built this century though.

We don't even have the material capable of this type of structure in our toolkit. Let alone a means to produce the obscene quantities of it that would be required to make such a structure.

We will sooner have mass produced fusion reactors than a space elevator... And I will lay money on that.

Fusion is not an inevitability... at least not mass produced!

Neither is a space elevator!!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 8:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 5:45:15 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/26/2014 2:57:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.

You're joking, right?

It has to be anchored to the earth, it just doesn't work without that.

It sounds like it's going to be pretty heavy already anyway... does it blow away if we don't anchor it? I don't understand classical physics very much!

Yeah, the whole point is it uses centrifugal force, it's just a really long tethered weight, it stays up because the earth is spinning, untether it and it gets launched into space.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 9:40:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 8:43:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/26/2014 5:45:15 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/26/2014 2:57:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.

You're joking, right?

It has to be anchored to the earth, it just doesn't work without that.

It sounds like it's going to be pretty heavy already anyway... does it blow away if we don't anchor it? I don't understand classical physics very much!

Yeah, the whole point is it uses centrifugal force, it's just a really long tethered weight, it stays up because the earth is spinning, untether it and it gets launched into space.

Hmm... I really don't get it. I thought the whole deal with the strength of the nanotubes was that the thing weighed so much (being thousands of miles long) that the gravity tore it apart. Isn't there some point where the centrifugal force and gravity cancel each other out? I thought the whole advantage of satellites was that they were perfectly balanced like this...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 2:52:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 5:34:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/22/2014 1:02:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com...

http://www.virginiaedition.com...

Predicted by a study and review from the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a space elevator could be build by 2035. I doubt that. I believe one could be built this century though.

We don't even have the material capable of this type of structure in our toolkit. Let alone a means to produce the obscene quantities of it that would be required to make such a structure.

We will sooner have mass produced fusion reactors than a space elevator... And I will lay money on that.

I agree.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 5:50:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:40:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/26/2014 8:43:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/26/2014 5:45:15 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/26/2014 2:57:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/25/2014 10:22:31 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
They should shorten the elevator so that it doesn't reach the ground! We could hang it over Mount Everest and fly helicopters up to it from there. The bottom is where most of the gravity is, too.

You're joking, right?

It has to be anchored to the earth, it just doesn't work without that.

It sounds like it's going to be pretty heavy already anyway... does it blow away if we don't anchor it? I don't understand classical physics very much!

Yeah, the whole point is it uses centrifugal force, it's just a really long tethered weight, it stays up because the earth is spinning, untether it and it gets launched into space.

Hmm... I really don't get it. I thought the whole deal with the strength of the nanotubes was that the thing weighed so much (being thousands of miles long) that the gravity tore it apart. Isn't there some point where the centrifugal force and gravity cancel each other out? I thought the whole advantage of satellites was that they were perfectly balanced like this...

No, the strength of the nanotubes is critical because the counterweight is out beyond the area of geostationary orbit, it's literally being whipped through space by the rotation of the earth. The diagram on the right side of the wiki entry explains it pretty well, check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:41:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The article says that a 600 mile long elevator could be built by 2025. Without the whole report, I don't see how to evaluate the feasibility. The impression I get is that the basic carbon fiber technology is proven, so that the problem is more one of manufacturing on a large scale. I wonder how they calculate the odds of the structure being hit by space debris or meteors.

The space elevator is simple. The problem is to make a long ribbon. Commercial fusion power is incredibly complex, so there are many problems to be solved to make fusion practical. If the ribbon project is merely scaling up known technology, then the odds are good. Technical feasibility is then less important than the will to get it done. Lots of things are feasible that never happen. If you haven't seen an article about building a bridge across the Bering Sea from Alaska to Russia, stay tuned because the stories appear every ten or twenty years.

What I found interesting was the babble about how the base of the elevator has to be at sea so that no one country owns it and the whole thing depends upon international cooperation because, oh my, we couldn't allow one country to own it. If it is economically viable, then everyone who can afford it will have one. If it isn't viable, there is no problem of who owns it. If Starbucks decides that a coffee shop at the end of the cable would be profitable, it will happen.