Can scientists make a space elevator?
as
what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
using conventional construction techniques?
>http://edition. cnn.com/2009/ TECH/space/ 11/05/space. elevator/
> index.html
>
> Can scientists make a space elevator?
> By Doug Gross, CNN
> November 5, 2009 -- Updated 1529 GMT (2329 HKT)
>
> "The question Artsutanov asked himself had the childlike brilliance of
> true genius. A merely clever man could never have thought of it -- or
> would have dismissed it instantly as absurd. If the laws of celestial
> mechanics make it possible for an object to stay fixed in the sky,
> might it not be possible to lower a cable down to the surface, and so
> to establish an elevator system linking earth to space?" -- Arthur C.
> Clarke, 1979, "The Fountains of Paradise"
>
> (CNN) -- It sounds like science fiction. And it was.
>
> Now, 30 years after "2001" author Arthur C. Clarke wrote about an
> elevator that rises into outer space, serious research is happening
> all over the world in an effort to make the far-fetched- sounding idea
> a reality.
>
> The benefits of a fully realized elevator would make carrying people
> and goods into space cheaper, easier and safer than with rocket
> launches, proponents say, opening up a host of possibilities.
>
> Restaurants and hotels for space tourists. Wind turbines that provide
> energy by spinning 24 hours a day. A cheaper, easier and more
> environmentally friendly way to launch rockets.
>
> Scientists envision all of the above -- possibly within our lifetimes.
>
> This week in the Mojave Desert, three teams of engineers are competing
> for $2 million offered up by NASA for anyone who can build a prototype
> of an elevator able to crawl up a kilometer-high tether while hauling
> a heavy payload.
>
> "We haven't had any winners yet, but we truly do expect to have at
> least one winner, probably more [this year]," said Ted Semon,
> spokesman for The Spaceward Foundation, which has run the competition
> for the past several years.
>
> Most models for an elevator into space involve attaching a cable from
> a satellite, space station or other counterweight to a base on Earth's
> surface.
>
> Scientists say inertia would keep the cable tight enough to allow an
> elevator to climb it.
>
> The inspiration for researchers to pursue a space elevator started, as
> many scientific advances have, in the fantastical world of science
> fiction.
>
> In Clarke's 1979 novel "The Fountains of Paradise," he writes about a
> scientist battling technological, political and ethical difficulties
> involved in creating a space elevator.
>
> In the years that followed, Clarke, who died last year, remained an
> outspoken advocate for researching and funding the elevator.
>
> Others are now carrying the torch.
>
> "Space elevator research is important because it is a way to build a
> bridge to space instead of ferrying everything by rocket," said
> Smitherman, who has conducted research and published findings on the
> effort.
>
> "Look at the cost and efficiency of a bridge versus a ferry on Earth
> and then look at the cost and inefficiency of the rocket ferries we
> use today and you will see why so many people are looking for a
> 'bridge' solution like the space elevator."
>
> Microsoft is among the sponsors an annual space elevator conference,
> and teams in Japan and Russia are among those working to turn the
> theory into reality -- even if they all admit they have a long way to
> go.
>
> Even the most avid proponents of the research admit there are big
> hurdles that need to be overcome.
>
> The first, scientists say, is that there's currently not a viable
> material strong enough to make the cables that will support heavy
> loads of passengers or cargo into orbit. According to NASA research,
> the space elevator cable would need to be about 22,000 miles long.
> That's how far away a satellite must be to maintain orbit above a
> fixed spot on the Earth's equator.
>
> "Right now, if you use the strongest material in the world, the weight
> of the tether would be so much that it would actually snap," said
> Semon, a retired software engineer. He said the super-light material
> would probably need to be about 25 times stronger than what's now
> commercially available.
>
> In a separate competition, his group offers a prize to any team that
> can build a tether that's at least twice as strong as what's currently
> on the market.
>
> Another issue, scientists say, is how to keep the cable, or the
> elevator itself, from getting clobbered by meteorites or space junk
> floating around in space. Some suggest a massive cleanup of Earth's
> near orbit would be required.
>
> And then there's the cost. Estimates are as high as $20 billion for a
> working system that would stretch into orbit.
>
> Many think it would be private enterprise, not a government, that
> would spring for the earliest versions of the elevator.
>
> Professor Brendan Quine and his team at York University in Toronto,
> Canada, think they have the answers to at least some of those
> problems.
>
> They've built a three-story high prototype of an elevator tower that
> would rise roughly 13 miles (20 kilometers) -- high enough to escape
> most of the earth's atmosphere.
>
> "At 20 kilometers, you still have gravity; you're not in orbit," Quine
> said. "But for a tourist, you can see basically the same things an
> astronaut sees -- the blackness of space, the horizon of the Earth."
>
> In the stratosphere, the tower also could potentially be used to
> launch rockets, he said. The most expensive and energy-sucking part of
> any space launch now is blasting from the ground out of the
> atmosphere.
>
> Constructed from Kevlar, the free-standing structure would use
> pneumatically inflated sections pressurized with a lightweight gas,
> such as hydrogen or helium, to actively stabilize itself and allow for
> flexibility. A series of platforms or pods, supported by the elevator,
> would be used to launch payloads into Earth's orbit.
>
> Quine acknowledged that the prototype is just a first step toward
> realizing the elevator and that several more prototypes are needed to
> fine-tune details.
>
> He estimated that the cost of the basic tower would be about $2
> billion -- the equivalent of a massive skyscraper in places like New
> York -- and that the technology to build it could be ready in less
> than 10 years.
>
> He said a more advanced -- and expensive -- elevator tower could be
> built to go higher into the stratosphere.
>
> But for the purposes of actually ferrying everyday people into space,
> 20 kilometers makes the most sense, Quine said.
>
> "The tower might be economically viable if you're able to transport
> 1,000 people a day to the to of it for about $1,000 a ticket," he
> said. "At the top, you'd probably want amenities -- hotels,
> restaurants. It could be a very pleasant experience, in contrast to
> zero gravity, which makes many people sick."
>
> For now, advocates of making the elevator a reality say they'll keep
> at it. They'll continue reminding themselves that they wouldn't be the
> first to turn what started as an outlandish idea into good science.
>
> "Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction,"
> Clarke once said. "They may be summed up by the phrases: One, it's
> completely impossible. Two, it's possible, but it's not worth doing.
> Three, I said it was a good idea all along."
Sam Wormley
> what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
> using conventional construction techniques?
"conventional construction techniques" are not strong/light enough.
tadchem
The same can be said of conventional construction materials.
The bottom end wants to track the earth at about 1040 mph relative to
the earth's center.
At the top of the stratosphere the tether wants to move about 17,000
mph as if it were in low earth orbit.
the geostationary end wants to orbit at 6878 mph.
Way too much tension results.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
notacop
please reply only to the group you read his reposted newspaper articles
in. TIA
In article <sB%Mm.135895$5n1.68075@attbi_s21>, swor...@mchsi.com
says...
notacop
please reply only to the group you read his reposted newspaper articles
in. TIA
In article <6493b7dc-e1af-4577-b64b-
789d94...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, tad...@comcast.net says...
Uncle Al
>
> what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
> using conventional construction techniques?
1) The necessary tensile material does not exist.
2) It must be a dielectric or magnetosphere billows will vaporize
it via Lenz' law.
3) It must continuously survive the van Allen radiation belts,
solar vacuum UV, annual meteor showers, and orbital debris.
4) The fastest elevator (Taipei 101) is 60.6 km/hr. That would be
26 days to 23,500 miles altitude.
5) There is no way to power the elevator.
6) Only the endpoints are in equilibrium orbit. The other 23,500
miles of length have Roche limit problems if straight.
7) The beanstalk's equilibrium shape is a spiral.
8) At a mere 10 lbs/foot we're talking minimum 560,000 metric
tonnes of hyperexotic stuff hauled into geosynchronous orbit.
9) The entire planet's economy could not pay for its material or
transportation.
10) If it snaps... that's one fuck of a "Crack the Whip" no doubt
clobbering the Shire of Esperance.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
zzbu...@netscape.net
> what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
> using conventional construction techniques?
Well, since the people in advanced engineering stopped working
on convential evelators 70 or so years ago, that's hard to do.
Since elevators require more escavation than they do
construction anything. So they're still working on self-replicating
machines
holographics and on-line publishing, rather than media outlets,
and self-assembling lasers, rather than hydraulics,
and pv cell energy, data compression, and fiber optics rather than
electric motors,
and micrwave cooling, rather than a/c, and post 1960 computer
harddisks
rather than IBM technology, and GPS, and hybrid-electric
technology, rather than
NASA anything.
> > Three, I said it was a good idea all along."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
john
> as wrote:
>
> > what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
> > using conventional construction techniques?
>
> [snip crap]
>
> 1) The necessary tensile material does not exist.
> 2) It must be a dielectric or magnetosphere billows will vaporize
> it via Lenz' law.
> 3) It must continuously survive the van Allen radiation belts,
> solar vacuum UV, annual meteor showers, and orbital debris.
> 4) The fastest elevator (Taipei 101) is 60.6 km/hr. That would be
> 26 days to 23,500 miles altitude.
> 5) There is no way to power the elevator.
> 6) Only the endpoints are in equilibrium orbit. The other 23,500
> miles of length have Roche limit problems if straight.
> 7) The beanstalk's equilibrium shape is a spiral.
> 8) At a mere 10 lbs/foot we're talking minimum 560,000 metric
> tonnes of hyperexotic stuff hauled into geosynchronous orbit.
> 9) The entire planet's economy could not pay for its material or
> transportation.
> 10) If it snaps... that's one fuck of a "Crack the Whip" no doubt
> clobbering the Shire of Esperance.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
You know, Al, you really do have
a good brain, sometimes.
The space elevator is the stupidest
idea ever.
john
as
um, i don't know who to reply to. anyhow, how about this for an
idea...?
using an ordinary plastic hosepipe, enclosed at one end by another
pipe of slightly bigger radius, you connect wires along its length.
tether the pipe in a central location and teher the wires at strategic
locations at set distances from it. then using engineering, start
hauling the pipe into space by pulling on all cables as required and
simultaneously inject liquid cement through the pipe so that the
thrust of the liquid gives it bouyancy. the surrounding pipe will
transport the ejaculate safely to earth only to be rerouted through
the system once again. in time the cement will dry, leaving a sturdy
column of concrete encased in plastic supported by computer controled
wires. then we could either use the wires or the column to ascend into
space. et voila!
as
>
> - Show quoted text -
well, in theory, we don't even need a solid like cement, because the
thrust property of a material like water is sufficient to keep it up.
the column of water can be ascended as and when required.
btw, please ignore the invasions into my life and yours by certain
universal forces.
as
>
> - Show quoted text -
these ideas are fairly remote but something more practical would be to
use a normal construction lift that builds itself and keep going
untill you reach space. there is no theoretical reason why this
wouldn't work. if done right, this could provide a great tourist
attraction and be the basis of much space construction and satelite
launches.
jmfbahciv
Gravity.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> as wrote:
>> what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
>> using conventional construction techniques?
> [snip crap]
>
> 1) The necessary tensile material does not exist.
> 2) It must be a dielectric or magnetosphere billows will vaporize
> it via Lenz' law.
> 3) It must continuously survive the van Allen radiation belts,
> solar vacuum UV, annual meteor showers, and orbital debris.
> 4) The fastest elevator (Taipei 101) is 60.6 km/hr. That would be
> 26 days to 23,500 miles altitude.
> 5) There is no way to power the elevator.
> 6) Only the endpoints are in equilibrium orbit. The other 23,500
> miles of length have Roche limit problems if straight.
> 7) The beanstalk's equilibrium shape is a spiral.
> 8) At a mere 10 lbs/foot we're talking minimum 560,000 metric
> tonnes of hyperexotic stuff hauled into geosynchronous orbit.
> 9) The entire planet's economy could not pay for its material or
> transportation.
> 10) If it snaps... that's one fuck of a "Crack the Whip" no doubt
> clobbering the Shire of Esperance.
>
There is a scifi short story about a moon which orbits the planet
and has an altitude of ~ meter(?). When would airplanes and birds
be allowed to cross the orbit?
for that matter, would the structure survive an intersection with
a flock of birds.
/BAH
jbriggs444
"The Holes Around Mars", Jerome Bixby
The premise of a satellite in extremely low orbit is plainly
nonsense. Any such orbit would decay rapidly, even on Mars. [The
orbit in question actually intersected with numerous bits of plant
life which continued to grow into the resulting holes. The story
exists for its punch line, "Bottomos".
> for that matter, would the structure survive an intersection with
> a flock of birds.
The bottom end of a space elevator would be designed to be at [near]
rest in the atmosphere. Any other design loses energy to air
resistance.
As to the question of whether an unobtainium cable can survive impact
with a jet aircraft, we'll have to obtain some unobtaininum in order
to test its properties.
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
The space elevator is the
stupidest idea ever.
As I hear more and more
from physicists, I start to wonder
if those who go into physics do so
because they are actually
challenged in that area.
It's obvious to me that T. Rex could not
survive in today's gravity. This is apparently
not so obvious to actual physicists.
It's obvious to me that sticking stuff up
into the jet stream is going to
instantaneously result in a hugely
massive popcicle that will come
crashing down. Don't you physics-challenged
people see that?
Why not? R U stupid?
john
Uncle Al
There is no jet stream at the equator where a beanstalk must be
erected or dropped. As for all exo-terrestrial projects, the sweet
spot is Mt. Chimborazo 01�28'09"S - the point furthest from Earth's
center of mass. Next best high altitude is Mt. Kilimanjaro
03�04'033"S. If you want the Equator spot on plus modest altitude,
Volc�n Wolf 00�02'33"N on Isla Isabela, Galapagos. Enviro-whiners
will piss and moan.
A tall mountain is absolutely necessary so garbage and sewage can be
dumped down the side into squatter villages below that warehouse cheap
labor.
You having no demonstrated ability to perform scholary work, trivial
factual accumulation is beyond you.
john
> will piss and moan.
>
> A tall mountain is absolutely necessary so garbage and sewage can be
> dumped down the side into squatter villages below that warehouse cheap
> labor.
>
> You having no demonstrated ability to perform scholary work, trivial
> factual accumulation is beyond you.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
Why?
Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height
equator or not?
Why?
Would this height be involved in the space
elevator phantasy?
What are you going to do about that?
Heat the whole 10,000 miles? Ha ha ha.
I know- you could use lots of rocket fuel!!!
Al, you are possibly schizophrenic- have
you checked that out?
How's your nutrition?
Do you feed yourself, or is an
institution making sure both your ends are
taken care of?
john
Uncle Al
> > will piss and moan.
> >
> > A tall mountain is absolutely necessary so garbage and sewage can be
> > dumped down the side into squatter villages below that warehouse cheap
> > labor.
> >
> > You having no demonstrated ability to perform scholary work, trivial
> > factual accumulation is beyond you.
> Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>
> Why?
Adiabatic lapse rate + nucleated water sprayed by ski chalets.
> Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height
> equator or not?
>[snip rest of crap]
idiot
--
Uncle Al
john
> > > will piss and moan.
>
> > > A tall mountain is absolutely necessary so garbage and sewage can be
> > > dumped down the side into squatter villages below that warehouse cheap
> > > labor.
>
> > > You having no demonstrated ability to perform scholary work, trivial
> > > factual accumulation is beyond you.
> > Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>
> > Why?
>
> Adiabatic lapse rate + nucleated water sprayed by ski chalets.
>
> > Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height
> > equator or not?
> >[snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've managed to distill very smart and
stupid as dirt into one package.
Wow.
john
tj Frazir
Aleph
sci.physics on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:36:09 -0500, tj Frazir
<Gravity...@webtv.net> imparted these words of wisdom:
>
> They cant figer out how to build an engine much less anything usable.
Did Relf get his money or are you going to keep pretending its "on its
way?"
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
jmfbahciv
Ah! Thank you.
>
> The premise of a satellite in extremely low orbit is plainly
> nonsense. Any such orbit would decay rapidly, even on Mars. [The
> orbit in question actually intersected with numerous bits of plant
> life which continued to grow into the resulting holes. The story
> exists for its punch line, "Bottomos".
I didn't think the orbit science was correct but the story was
about human attitudes that don't learn from the lowly natives :-).
>
>> for that matter, would the structure survive an intersection with
>> a flock of birds.
>
> The bottom end of a space elevator would be designed to be at [near]
> rest in the atmosphere. Any other design loses energy to air
> resistance.
>
> As to the question of whether an unobtainium cable can survive impact
> with a jet aircraft, we'll have to obtain some unobtaininum in order
> to test its properties.
I suspect it's in the same mine as the irony.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
whose business plan is to build one these things
and sold shares.
/BAH
Marvin the Martian
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:47:03 -0800, as wrote:
> what do you think guys? is it possible to construct a space elevator
> using conventional construction techniques?
On earth, there is no known material that can be used to make a space
elevator. If they find a way to make really long carbon nanotubes, then
maybe. If the nanotubes pan out.
However, you can make a space elevator on my planet, Mars, out of Kevlar,
or even steel.
tj Frazir
Thats 750,000 volts or lightning .
It dont matter what you run up ,,it will fry.
minus 200 F and with 750,000 volt zaps evry 30 seconds.
You did know the volt diferance from the top to bottom of the sky dint
you ?
Biulding tha stupid thing would be a real dumb time to find out.
Aleph
sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:12:38 -0500, tj Frazir
> Thats 750,000 volts or lightning .
> It dont matter what you run up ,,it will fry.
> minus 200 F and with 750,000 volt zaps evry 30 seconds.
>
> You did know the volt diferance from the top to bottom of the sky dint
> you ?
> Biulding tha stupid thing would be a real dumb time to find out.
>
Put a stop to your gibberish.
Why is the money you promised Relf?
Put up, or shut up.
Marvin the Martian
>
> Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>
> Why?
>
> Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height equator or
> not?
>
> Why?
Using the same bad logic, airplanes don't fly above 10,000 ft.
tj Frazir
20 gallon murcury.
freeze it fill it close it then heat it and stand 10 miles back.
How to build clear steel the maine engine to a ufo.
tj Frazir
Gravity is the fact time is faster near mass.
Sam might understand that time slope is gravity.
I may have made sam understand gravity .
Lets test sams brain !!
OK SAM the clear steel disk is spun in a vaccume to near c .
The faster it spins the faster the mass moves so the slower time is
around the disk and in the disk...in fact its warping some space its
spinning so fucking fast .
Remeber falling down is the fact time is slower above you then under
you.
for a short distance relitive the mass and speed time is slower in the
disk and around the disk for 300 feet.
Now place it so we and the ship fall UP ..so time is a tad faster
above and slower under instead of faster under and slower above.
Yea sam.... the more i learn about you the stronger what I say is.
who on earth could build such things ?
Aleph
<3424-4B09...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>, tj Frazir sat down and
wrote the following words of wisdom:
<snip crap>
Money. Where is it?
--
Aleph
This message was posted to usenet so please reply that way. Emails to
this account are very likely to be ignored.
john
Not without pressurized cabins and de-icers on
their wings.
You gonna heat that sucker all the way up?
Or just for the length in the atmosphere?
How much rocket fuel will that use?
What is the point?
To make space access less expensive?
Like Al says, the endpoints are the only points that
want to stay where they are; the rest of it is going to
curl up like a spring.
It is a very stupid idea.
john
Marvin the Martian
> On Nov 22, 2:30 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:12 -0800, john wrote:
>>
>> > Is there snow on tops of tall mountains?
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> > Would snow and ice collect on anything above a certain height equator
>> > or not?
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> Using the same bad logic, airplanes don't fly above 10,000 ft.
>
> Not without pressurized cabins and de-icers on their wings.
It was my point that technology solved the problem.
> You gonna heat that sucker all the way up? Or just for the length in the
> atmosphere?
You don't have to "heat" it. Airplanes use heat because it is an
available waste product of their engines. Some airplanes use "impulse"
methods to remove ice. There are other approaches that could be used. And
no, you don't have to remove ice where ice doesn't form.
> How much rocket fuel will that use?
This is a space elevator, not a rocket.
> What is the point?
To get to space a lot more cheaply than rockets.
> To make space access less expensive?
Yep.
> Like Al says,
Al is a sociopath, here to insult people because he has ego damage. He's
not here to talk about physics.
> the endpoints are the only points that want to stay where
> they are; the rest of it is going to curl up like a spring.
Yeah, that happens when I twirl a object on a string around me. NOT.
Raymond Yohros
using a strong laser to axelerate an object in2 orbit?
this can be dangerous and also very dificult to do
Marvin the Martian
> using a strong laser to axelerate an object in2 orbit? this can be
> dangerous and also very dificult to do
How would this work? Make an ablative reaction mass on the hind end of
the object and blast it with a laser? You can't handle rolling the rocket
into orbit that way.
There are groups investigating the use of a laser to transfer power to
the elevator so it can climb.
Raymond Yohros
i have better ideas but i dont think i should talk about it!