User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:01:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Fuck the elevator... put me on this ride...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:04:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. Zapped with laser to alter orbit  like this? Won't work, if it was able to fry it into nothing then ok, but otherwise you just created more micrometeoroids and made it harder to clean up. Better to recover the junk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:04:33 AM EDT
[#3]
Two blue babes at one time, yeah that's what we need it for . . .
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Captain Kirk always found hot alien babes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. Captain Kirk always found hot alien babes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:06:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Didn't realize how freaking long the thing was. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:06:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you even Helium 3 bro? There's enough of that shit on the moon to provide clean power for the planet for centuries. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. Depends on what you define as interesting. Do you even Helium 3 bro? There's enough of that shit on the moon to provide clean power for the planet for centuries. The evidence of such massive quantities of He3 is sketchy at best. It may only be trace amounts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:08:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The evidence of such massive quantities of He3 is sketchy at best. It may only be trace amounts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. Depends on what you define as interesting. Do you even Helium 3 bro? There's enough of that shit on the moon to provide clean power for the planet for centuries. The evidence of such massive quantities of He3 is sketchy at best. It may only be trace amounts. Nor have we developed a practical fusion power process yet. But when we do, it will neatly solve all the problems in the ME. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:09:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Zapped with laser to alter orbit like this? Won't work, if it was able to fry it into nothing then ok, but otherwise you just created more micrometeoroids and made it harder to clean up. Better to recover the junk.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. Zapped with laser to alter orbit like this? Won't work, if it was able to fry it into nothing then ok, but otherwise you just created more micrometeoroids and made it harder to clean up. Better to recover the junk.If it will work depends completely on material makeup. With some materials, you can boil mass off of one side using the laser, resulting in thrust and thus delta-v. Pulsing the laser helps maximize gas conversion and minimize secondary debris. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:09:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryI guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:10:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:16:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You would need a funicular type design. Think of a chainsaw blade, not an elevator. The weight of the cars coming down would pull the other cars upward, the only energy expended would be life support or when going up with little or no downward cargo. The lift side might have to wait till we could get product coming down. Give those damn miners some encouragement to work if they can't get air and food till they ship us some minerals. Also Heinleins "Jack and the beanstalk" was based on the top of the highest mountain on earth to save costs. It also gets blown up by terrorists, so there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We only need enough to get people out to the asteroids. Then, they can mine whatever it is people want to mine. In order to get it back, they can then form a giant solid ball of the materials, like, a kilometer across, and fire it straight back at Earth at supersonic speeds. The giant ball of solid metal will crash through the atmosphere and impact somewhere unimportant, like Canada. We can then "re-mine" the metals from the craters. What could possibly go wrong?  You would need a funicular type design. Think of a chainsaw blade, not an elevator. The weight of the cars coming down would pull the other cars upward, the only energy expended would be life support or when going up with little or no downward cargo. The lift side might have to wait till we could get product coming down. Give those damn miners some encouragement to work if they can't get air and food till they ship us some minerals. Also Heinleins "Jack and the beanstalk" was based on the top of the highest mountain on earth to save costs. It also gets blown up by terrorists, so there. Yeah, at this stage I'm not really considering the operation of an actual space elevator, I'm mostly looking for excuses to shoot 1-km-wide lumps of space metal at the French-speaking part of Canada. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:20:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, at this stage I'm not really considering the operation of an actual space elevator, I'm mostly looking for excuses to shoot 1-km-wide lumps of space metal at the French-speaking part of Canada. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We only need enough to get people out to the asteroids. Then, they can mine whatever it is people want to mine. In order to get it back, they can then form a giant solid ball of the materials, like, a kilometer across, and fire it straight back at Earth at supersonic speeds. The giant ball of solid metal will crash through the atmosphere and impact somewhere unimportant, like Canada. We can then "re-mine" the metals from the craters. What could possibly go wrong? You would need a funicular type design. Think of a chainsaw blade, not an elevator. The weight of the cars coming down would pull the other cars upward, the only energy expended would be life support or when going up with little or no downward cargo. The lift side might have to wait till we could get product coming down. Give those damn miners some encouragement to work if they can't get air and food till they ship us some minerals. Also Heinleins "Jack and the beanstalk" was based on the top of the highest mountain on earth to save costs. It also gets blown up by terrorists, so there. Yeah, at this stage I'm not really considering the operation of an actual space elevator, I'm mostly looking for excuses to shoot 1-km-wide lumps of space metal at the French-speaking part of Canada. Which, as long as we also develop the elevator, I fully support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:41:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? LOL... Yet another failure to grasp scale. Take a BB. Tie a piece of dental floss around it. Leave about a 4' length. Now, hold on to the end and spin in a circle. How much "destabilization" did you feel? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:41:53 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck the elevator... put me on this ride... http://www.spaceanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Underwater-space-cannon.jpg You will be a puddle of goo in the base of the projectile by the time you exit the muzzle. 
And then you will be a puddle in the nose of the projectile because you start decelerating when you leave the muzzle. Some rough calculations because I'm a nerd and had to think about it:  ,
-To hit Low Earth Orbit you will need around 10 km/s of Velocity, or 10,000 m/s. -To hit that velocity by the end of the muzzle at a modest acceleration of 100g (rounding to 1000m/s/s) you will be accelerating for 10 seconds -Which means the length of the rifle barrel will be (1/2*a* t^2 or 1/2*1,000 m/s/s*(10 sec)^2) 50 km long. The one in the picture looks a mite bit shorter than 50 km which means the acceleration is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:46:34 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:56:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. Space is HUGE. Even with all those thousands of satellites, I don't think a collision is very likely at all. I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine that most satellites would orbit at a higher altitude than how far the space elevator would reach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:58:30 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. I don't think it would be feasible on earth. The moon might be different, however given it's lower escape velocity the rail gun might be a better option for lifting mass off the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:01:57 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. Given current technology that's almost true. The Moon and Mars are within reach, or would be once the requisite resources were gathered in orbit. I don't understand the concept of an orbital tether well enough to be sure, but wouldn't you need a second one on the antipodes to balance it and keep from building a rotational oscillation in the Earth's motion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:09:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Space is HUGE. Even with all those thousands of satellites, I don't think a collision is very likely at all. I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine that most satellites would orbit at a higher altitude than how far the space elevator would reach. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. Space is HUGE. Even with all those thousands of satellites, I don't think a collision is very likely at all. I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine that most satellites would orbit at a higher altitude than how far the space elevator would reach. The space elevator has to have its counter weight above geosynchronous orbit or the whole thing falls back to earth. 99%+ the satellites we have launched are in geosynchronous orbital or lower. The image I linked to above show most orbital objects or at least represents the distribution in orbit. As you can see the geosynchronous orbit forms the faint halo (Lots of telcom and weather satellites) you see. Any objects above or below the equatorial disk formed by the geosynchronous orbits will cross the equatorial disk twice per orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:11:46 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Given current technology that's almost true. The Moon and Mars are within reach, or would be once the requisite resources were gathered in orbit. I don't understand the concept of an orbital tether well enough to be sure, but wouldn't you need a second one on the antipodes to balance it and keep from building a rotational oscillation in the Earth's motion? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. Given current technology that's almost true. The Moon and Mars are within reach, or would be once the requisite resources were gathered in orbit. I don't understand the concept of an orbital tether well enough to be sure, but wouldn't you need a second one on the antipodes to balance it and keep from building a rotational oscillation in the Earth's motion? Just need a cheap easy way to get all the pieces in orbit.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:17:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL... Yet another failure to grasp scale. Take a BB. Tie a piece of dental floss around it. Leave about a 4' length. Now, hold on to the end and spin in a circle. How much "destabilization" did you feel? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? LOL... Yet another failure to grasp scale. Take a BB. Tie a piece of dental floss around it. Leave about a 4' length. Now, hold on to the end and spin in a circle. How much "destabilization" did you feel? Also How fast do I have to swing it to get the scale right for required relative velocity (in either revs or miles per hour) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:20:44 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. The problem is that your mind is full of concepts that simply aren't true. Let's focus on the part in red. The nice thing about this type of science is that math can prove or disprove pretty much anything. So, prove your statement. Let's use a fairly simple problem, so the math isn't too hard. Let us theorize a space elevator built at a peak in Eucador, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. Geographic location: 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. Let us theorize an object in low orbit. Orbital parameters as follows: Perigee: 262 miles. Apogee: 263 miles. Avg velocity: 17,100 miles per hour. Inclination: 0.000°. Period: 92.810 minutes. Epoch: 18 July, 2014. You have asserted repeatedly that all orbits will conflict with the elevator. Show your work. When will that orbit conflict with the elevator? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:22:09 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
So we have all the technology to build a working space elevator. We do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:24:09 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We do? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So we have all the technology to build a working space elevator. We do? Didn't you get the memo? The enterprise came back through a wormhole or something and gave us this and transparent aluminum last week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:25:48 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your understanding of orbital mechanics needs...improvement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If someone takes a picture of it with a flash the cables will fail. 
That, and the anchor has to be in geosynchronous orbit, which means any non-geosynchronous satellite is going to have to dodge the cables. It's like y'all didn't watch 'Gravity' or something. It's just a life taking, space polluting, huge waste of money boondoggle waiting to claim human lives if it's ever built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:27:07 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Space elevator is the stupidest way to get into space I have ever seen. We do not have material yet to make it or any way to erect it. A completed elevator would cross through every orbit possible to an altitude a bit above geosync creating a collision hazard for all those satellites below the counter weight at the top. Its 22000 mile to geosyne where you get off, at 1000mph it takes a day to get there. What are you using to propel the elevator car up the ribbon over that great distance. Retarded idea! Science!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:29:47 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one there to rape. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. I think the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt would do for starters. Plenty of territory to rape out there. No one there to rape. Space environmental rape. Raping the universe like a good Republican is supposed to. What kind of conservative are you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:33:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the humans to farm are here... Let them start wandering off and who knows what they might do. Can't have large populations moving to a new territory and potentially declaring independence... just look at how that turned out last time. Yeap. think of all the damage done that we have to go back and fix because of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:37:34 AM EDT
[#28]
So now we're gonna bolt some sort of nuclear powered laser to the thing to defend it from satellites, space junk and Malaysian airliners?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:37:49 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the acceleration required for that to work would be a back deal breaker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So we have all the technology to build a working space elevator. Why do you think no ones built one yet? Is it simply because no believes its of any value? A catapult would make more sense IMO. I think the acceleration required for that to work would be a back deal breaker. If we developed anti-gravity technology we wouldn't have to worry about elevators of catapults. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:38:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
So we have all the technology to build a working space elevator. Why do you think no ones built one yet? Is it simply because no believes its of any value? wat Uhhh no. We don't actually and if we did, we wouldn't need one. The prerequisite technologies would most likely make the space elevator irrelevant. Even if we could build one it's an impractical Rube Goldberg style contraption with too many technical hurdles to overcome to make it viable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 9:52:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem is that your mind is full of concepts that simply aren't true. Let's focus on the part in red. The nice thing about this type of science is that math can prove or disprove pretty much anything. So, prove your statement. Let's use a fairly simple problem, so the math isn't too hard. Let us theorize a space elevator built at a peak in Eucador, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. Geographic location: 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. Let us theorize an object in low orbit. Orbital parameters as follows: Perigee: 262 miles. Apogee: 263 miles. Avg velocity: 17,100 miles per hour. Inclination: 0.000°. Period: 92.810 minutes. Epoch: 18 July, 2014. You have asserted repeatedly that all orbits will conflict with the elevator. Show your work. When will that orbit conflict with the elevator? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photogallery/beehives/GEO640.jpg One more time, every satellite (and all that space junk) below the altitude of the counter weight (located some where above geosynchronous) and not in geosynchronous orbit will eventually have a close encounter with the fucking stupid ass space elevator. EVERY ONE OF THEM! Some objects in the higher orbits may only have a close call ever few years, others will likely get close enough to worry every few weeks to even days. That huge cloud of shit in inclined low earth orbit crossed the equator at least once an hour. (Remember the ISS in LEO has a 90 minute orbit crossing the equator twice in that time). Very little of that shit can maneuver to miss the elevator and the stuff that can maneuver will drastically reduce is life time in orbit dodging the space elevator. A low earth object that does strike the elevator will do so at somewhere between 4.7 and 10.9 km/s (10,500 - 24,400 mph). Even small (too small to be seen on ground base radar) trash will do significant damage at those velocities. For this any a bunch of other reasons a space elevator is a really stupid way to get to orbit. Someone has never actually simulated a space debris field, and thus does not yet grasp how big an orbit really is. How big is the elevator? How big is the orbiting object? How many times do those two combined sizes fit in the objects orbit? That will start to give you an idea as to why this isn't a problem. Not only must the orbiting object pass through the latitude of the elevator (which, depending on orbit, may never even happen), it must do so at the exact moment the elevators longitude intercepts the orbit. The odds of such a combination event are tiny. Further, most space junk is tiny and could be zapped with a laser, at least enough to alter its orbit to a non-conflict. All satellites will pass through the latitude of the elevator since nearly all plans for space fucking elevator puts the base on the equator the counter mass in an equatorial orbit. It's nearly impossible to build a space elevator off the equator. Every inclined orbit crosses the equator twice an orbit thus ensuring that any object below the altitude of the elevator's counter mass will eventually collide with the space elevator. An object is LEO will cross the equator ~12,000 times a year. There are ~8500 objects greater that 10cm in LEO. That is roughly 100 million equatorial crossing a year by object large enough to damage a space elevator. If only 0.000001% of these object would strike the elevator in a year time that is approximately one collision a year. Not to mention the potentially millions of smaller objects in low earth orbit that would slowly erode away the structural integrated of the LEO segment of the ribbon. Also remember all satellites on non inclined orbits will have very close calls with the space elevator on a period slightly longer than their orbital period. Given the enormous cost of building and installing a space fucking elevator I can't see how you can justify it with very real probable of collision with other objects in orbit. The problem is that your mind is full of concepts that simply aren't true. Let's focus on the part in red. The nice thing about this type of science is that math can prove or disprove pretty much anything. So, prove your statement. Let's use a fairly simple problem, so the math isn't too hard. Let us theorize a space elevator built at a peak in Eucador, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. Geographic location: 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. Let us theorize an object in low orbit. Orbital parameters as follows: Perigee: 262 miles. Apogee: 263 miles. Avg velocity: 17,100 miles per hour. Inclination: 0.000°. Period: 92.810 minutes. Epoch: 18 July, 2014. You have asserted repeatedly that all orbits will conflict with the elevator. Show your work. When will that orbit conflict with the elevator? First up you would not build it 0.029°0'0N you would put it right on the equator but if you did this particular orbit would miss the elevator less than 2 miles and your elevator would not be pure vertical. Hope neither drift a little. If the elevator was on the equator the 0 degree inclination means that satellite will have a close passing of the space elevator every ~98.8 minutes, assuming its in a prograde orbit if its retrograde then it will have a close passing of the elevator every 86.8 minutes. Other than geosynchronous satellites most low earth orbit satellites are in inclined orbits to cover a larger range of moderate latitudes like GPS and iridium constellations. These would again cross either your 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. or a true equatorial elevator's latitude twice an orbit. Sure the probability of an impact by any particular satellite is reasonable low but without maneuvering nearly all object in orbit would eventually hit the elevator. In light of the huge number of satellites and debris in orbit, the enormous cost of building and installing the elevator and costs and consequences of such a collision it seems like it is unlikely to be a net benefit. Not to mention the additional burden on existing and future satellites to have to avoid the elevator. Stupid idea! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 10:17:30 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terrorist magnet. unfortunately true 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 10:30:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You will be a puddle of goo in the base of the projectile by the time you exit the muzzle.
And then you will be a puddle in the nose of the projectile because you start decelerating when you leave the muzzle. Some rough calculations because I'm a nerd and had to think about it: ,
-To hit Low Earth Orbit you will need around 10 km/s of Velocity, or 10,000 m/s. -To hit that velocity by the end of the muzzle at a modest acceleration of 100g (rounding to 1000m/s/s) you will be accelerating for 10 seconds -Which means the length of the rifle barrel will be (1/2*a* t^2 or 1/2*1,000 m/s/s*(10 sec)^2) 50 km long. The one in the picture looks a mite bit shorter than 50 km which means the acceleration is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the elevator... put me on this ride... http://www.spaceanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Underwater-space-cannon.jpg You will be a puddle of goo in the base of the projectile by the time you exit the muzzle.
And then you will be a puddle in the nose of the projectile because you start decelerating when you leave the muzzle. Some rough calculations because I'm a nerd and had to think about it: ,
-To hit Low Earth Orbit you will need around 10 km/s of Velocity, or 10,000 m/s. -To hit that velocity by the end of the muzzle at a modest acceleration of 100g (rounding to 1000m/s/s) you will be accelerating for 10 seconds -Which means the length of the rifle barrel will be (1/2*a* t^2 or 1/2*1,000 m/s/s*(10 sec)^2) 50 km long. The one in the picture looks a mite bit shorter than 50 km which means the acceleration is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. Your projectile has to start with speed far above escape velocity, escape velocity is the speed remaining after reaching the desired altitude. The mach number at sea level will impressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 11:41:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your projectile has to start with speed far above escape velocity, escape velocity is the speed remaining after reaching the desired altitude. The mach number at sea level will impressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the elevator... put me on this ride... http://www.spaceanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Underwater-space-cannon.jpg You will be a puddle of goo in the base of the projectile by the time you exit the muzzle.
And then you will be a puddle in the nose of the projectile because you start decelerating when you leave the muzzle. Some rough calculations because I'm a nerd and had to think about it: ,
-To hit Low Earth Orbit you will need around 10 km/s of Velocity, or 10,000 m/s. -To hit that velocity by the end of the muzzle at a modest acceleration of 100g (rounding to 1000m/s/s) you will be accelerating for 10 seconds -Which means the length of the rifle barrel will be (1/2*a* t^2 or 1/2*1,000 m/s/s*(10 sec)^2) 50 km long. The one in the picture looks a mite bit shorter than 50 km which means the acceleration is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. Your projectile has to start with speed far above escape velocity, escape velocity is the speed remaining after reaching the desired altitude. The mach number at sea level will impressive. The projectile can have on board propulsion to carry it the rest of the way, but you are still not going to put a living human inside it unless you want human paste at the destination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 11:43:09 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your projectile has to start with speed far above escape velocity, escape velocity is the speed remaining after reaching the desired altitude. The mach number at sea level will impressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck the elevator... put me on this ride... http://www.spaceanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Underwater-space-cannon.jpg You will be a puddle of goo in the base of the projectile by the time you exit the muzzle.
And then you will be a puddle in the nose of the projectile because you start decelerating when you leave the muzzle. Some rough calculations because I'm a nerd and had to think about it: ,
-To hit Low Earth Orbit you will need around 10 km/s of Velocity, or 10,000 m/s. -To hit that velocity by the end of the muzzle at a modest acceleration of 100g (rounding to 1000m/s/s) you will be accelerating for 10 seconds -Which means the length of the rifle barrel will be (1/2*a* t^2 or 1/2*1,000 m/s/s*(10 sec)^2) 50 km long. The one in the picture looks a mite bit shorter than 50 km which means the acceleration is going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher. Your projectile has to start with speed far above escape velocity, escape velocity is the speed remaining after reaching the desired altitude. The mach number at sea level will impressive. If by "impressive" you mean "pretty much impossible to deal with", then yeah. I question the ability of any payload to survive such a launch from the surface of the Earth unless you are lobbing at least a few hundred tons. You're going to need a shitload of sacrificial mass. On a low atmosphere or no atmosphere body, it may be a good option. Earth has both a deep gravity well and a crazy thick atmosphere. Launch options are annoyingly limited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 11:58:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Do you even KSP bro's?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:10:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, it pisses me off that Obama stopped work on the wall that Reagan started, and Bush almost finished.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:12:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you even KSP bro's? 0.24 is awesome! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:30:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: your correct you fail to grasp scale. Even a mono fiber line 22 miles long would weigh tons. A line heavy/strong enough to carry machinery required into space would weigh in tons per 100 ft the counter balance will have to be pretty good sized. Moving the moment of arc could possibly change the balance of the earth. I guess as a test we could have everyone run to one side of the planet. Also How fast do I have to swing it to get the scale right for required relative velocity (in either revs or miles per hour) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess the slim possibility it could destabilize the planets orbit part of the plan is ok with everyone here? LOL... Yet another failure to grasp scale. Take a BB. Tie a piece of dental floss around it. Leave about a 4' length. Now, hold on to the end and spin in a circle. How much "destabilization" did you feel? Also How fast do I have to swing it to get the scale right for required relative velocity (in either revs or miles per hour) Eta: never mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:32:08 PM EDT
[#40]
An all-the-way-to-orbit elevator may be a bit of a stretch, but some sort of a centrifugal or counterweight-based system to boost launchers up to decent velocities and altitudes without using on-board power could save tons of fuel and money.
How much of a booster's fuel is used just to get everything up to about 20,000 feet? 50,000 ft? IOW, how much could you save by "starting" that high and fast? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:34:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt would do for starters. Plenty of territory to rape out there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. I think the moon, Mars and the asteroid belt would do for starters. Plenty of territory to rape out there. Asteroid minning would be great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 5:53:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that your mind is full of concepts that simply aren't true. Let's focus on the part in red.
The nice thing about this type of science is that math can prove or disprove pretty much anything. So, prove your statement. Let's use a fairly simple problem, so the math isn't too hard. Let us theorize a space elevator built at a peak in Eucador, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. Geographic location: 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. Let us theorize an object in low orbit. Orbital parameters as follows: Perigee: 262 miles. Apogee: 263 miles. Avg velocity: 17,100 miles per hour. Inclination: 0.000°. Period: 92.810 minutes. Epoch: 18 July, 2014. You have asserted repeatedly that all orbits will conflict with the elevator. Show your work. When will that orbit conflict with the elevator? What you did theres, we seez it. Tell us about the benefits and problems of an off-equatorial space elevator.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:19:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you did theres, we seez it. Tell us about the benefits and problems of an off-equatorial space elevator.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The problem is that your mind is full of concepts that simply aren't true. Let's focus on the part in red.
The nice thing about this type of science is that math can prove or disprove pretty much anything. So, prove your statement. Let's use a fairly simple problem, so the math isn't too hard. Let us theorize a space elevator built at a peak in Eucador, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. Geographic location: 0.029°0'0N 77.986°0'0W. Let us theorize an object in low orbit. Orbital parameters as follows: Perigee: 262 miles. Apogee: 263 miles. Avg velocity: 17,100 miles per hour. Inclination: 0.000°. Period: 92.810 minutes. Epoch: 18 July, 2014. You have asserted repeatedly that all orbits will conflict with the elevator. Show your work. When will that orbit conflict with the elevator? What you did theres, we seez it. Tell us about the benefits and problems of an off-equatorial space elevator.
You see it. Many probably don't.
Benefits, among other things: Allow the potential use of a tall peak for the anchor site. As far as I know, no particularly tall peak is exactly on the equator. The one I quoted is pretty close and one of the farthest points on Earth from the center of the gravity well. A huge percentage of orbital debris, for a few reasons, tends to spend the most time at the equator, the further you place the elevator from the equator, the less space junk you will have to deal with, as a rule. A non-equatorial elevator might allow a loop configuration, anchored just above and just below the equator. This has a number of advantages. Increased line form stability from gravitational, solar, vibratory and atmospheric disturbances. It's awesome. Problems, among others probably not yet realized: Significantly increased tension on the ribbon. Constructing it would be an amazingly difficult task. It requires anchor tension for station keeping. Equatorial elevators do not. Obviously this is a fuzzy subject though as literally nothing is exactly on the equator (damn thing moves slightly, if we are being honest). But it can be summarized that this issue becomes more of a bitch the further you get from the equator in a non-linear fashion. There are probably other aspects. Those are the ones I have considered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:20:25 PM EDT
[#44]
Catastrophic failure of such a device will rain huge chunks of shit over several continents.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:23:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Catastrophic failure of such a device will rain huge chunks of shit over several continents. Most curiously, what happens if it pulls the mountain in Ecuador out of the ground? 
ETA: If there's the slightest possibility that it will, I'm forming the California Space Elevator Company next week. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:32:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Contrary to what you've seen on Star Trek, there's really nothing all that interesting beyond the atmosphere that we could get to within a human's lifespan. disagree, getting a person to mars would be cool. the key to mars is the moon. we'd save fuel using the space elevator to stockpile fuel on the moon, leave for mars from the moon to save fuel as well. not only would it be "closer", it would take less energy to leave it's surface. however, that's about the extent of it until we can either travel at the speed of light or time travel, we arent going anywhere that cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:32:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Catastrophic failure of such a device will rain huge chunks of shit over several continents. Only near the equator, so who gives a fuck? No country that matters is on the equator.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 7:20:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An all-the-way-to-orbit elevator may be a bit of a stretch, but some sort of a centrifugal or counterweight-based system to boost launchers up to decent velocities and altitudes without using on-board power could save tons of fuel and money. How much of a booster's fuel is used just to get everything up to about 20,000 feet? 50,000 ft? IOW, how much could you save by "starting" that high and fast? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:04:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Space elevator is the stupidest way to get into space I have ever seen. We do not have material yet to make it or any way to erect it. A completed elevator would cross through every orbit possible to an altitude a bit above geosync creating a collision hazard for all those satellites below the counter weight at the top. Its 22000 mile to geosyne where you get off, at 1000mph it takes a day to get there. What are you using to propel the elevator car up the ribbon over that great distance. Retarded idea!
You're using cheap as fuck electricity to go up. A space elevator is the cheapest & best way to build a permanent human presence in space & get stuff in orbit very cheaply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 8:06:16 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting close, but we have yet to fab a carbon nanotube or graphene belt or cable. But we are close. I would SWAG that we will be able to build a 1 km proof of concept device within the next 20~40 years, possibly within a decade. Although admittedly it's a big step going from 1 km to 35,786 km. Lots of issues to consider. Lots... cable tension, electric and air current effects, Van Allen radiation, ionospheric free oxygen... space junk... ETA: there was a Shuttle experiment several years ago that involved lowering a tether a few km, and it ran into all sorts of problems. It might have been attempting to charge the cable to demonstrate altitude control or power generation, but what ever it was, they fried the tether. ETA2: Atmospheric free oxygen -- read up on the Long Duration Exposure Facility experiment. Wow. That was power generation, and it worked much better than they thought, which is why the tether was fried. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
