/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11222616
Its gravity is 0.907g (10.36 km/s escape velocity & 1:243 day rotation), so I don't think it would work. Its rotation is also ultra slow. One for Mars should work, but Mercury probably not since that's only 0.377 (5.0 km/s escape velocity & 1:0.973 day rotation) and 0.378g (4.25 km/s escape velocity & 1:59 day rotation) respectively. Though, the moons of Mars might cause problems, its rotation and gravity seem to be the best candidate for a space elevator. I don't believe materials science will ever be able to make a space elevator for anything over 0.75g. The forces involved are just too great. Slow rotating plants won't be suitable since the escape velocity just won't be enough for geosynchronous tethering within the materials science limit.

I did not calculate minimum planet rotation and gravity to escape velocity. I'm sure there's a maximum rotation limit too.

>>11222702
I forgot an important aspect of my space elevator...
>it's upsidedown
Namely, it would replace the blimp station or floating cities, which I find terrifying in principle (gravity being a perpetual threat). The idea is to anchor the station in outer space and keep the elevator as a vehicle to enter and exist Venus with ease as well as relative safety, when contrasted with a balloon approach that is considerably unstable long term.

>>11222702
Some Asian came up with the idea of a
>cable
to replace an actual elevator.
That could also be useful.

Is it true that the government is trying to domesticate humans like a farmer domesticates plants? Are they really that crazy? Lol.

>>11223655
You mean a skyhook?

>>11223686
Doesn't help at all.

>>11224136
Why not?
Without math.

>>11225384
The problem is that there's no material that can hold its own weight for the distance required to create a space elevator for Earth. You can say, "Just use a super thin kevlar string or tiny steal cable." and it'd still be so long and so heavy that it'd instantly snap under its own weight. Then, "use a really thick cable!!!" and it'd snap under its own weight regardless of the material used to create it.

Also, pretty much all sci-fi space elevators are built in space using a long cable and then lowered to Earth and attached to an anchor.

>>11225432
Thank you, I got it now.
You did explain it properly earlier, mea culpa.

Any hopes for metamaterials, like solid-liquid state hybrids helping with that? Damn, I feel Venus could be bigger an opportunity than Mars but for the dreadful temperature and pressure at the surface.

>>11225630
>Any hopes for metamaterials
None at all I'm afraid. Pretty much ever, "'amazing material just around the bend,' researchers say," is just grant farming.

While this image is quite a big meme fest, check out the white section listing specs for celestial bodies and the viable colony section. Ridiculous amounts of radiation shielding aside, there are a few planet possibilities for colonies. Those planets provide nearly 1g, allow normal pressure at floating city altitude, and other than Venus they have high fuel atmospheres for colony use along with being much cooler than frying temps. It'd be easier to heat something up than cool something off after all. Rotations for Saturn/Uranus/Neptune are 10.52 hours for 1 Earth day/17.24 hours for 1 Earth day/>16 hours for 1 Earth day, respectively. Thus, all of those could probably have a sky hook if those things were possible, baring ring interference over all 3 of course. Though, I don't see the need.

The floating city idea comes from the the pressure you mention. A balloon here on earth need to have a gas that has less pressure (lighter than air) than the air you breath right? Well, on Venus, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune the 101kpa pressure we have here at sea level is actually way up high in the atmospheres of those planets. So, a "balloon" with normal Earth air and normal Earth air pressure could float around that height somewhere. Thus, a floating city that use normal materials to hold itself together. Jupiter also has a gas pressure zone like that, but its gravity at that zone is too much if I recall correctly.

The fear of crashing isn't too much or a problem when using cellular construction where an explosion would only rupture a scant few cells at most. The rest of the structure's cells would still hold everything afloat without much problem if any.

>>11225680
Too bad.
I still fear the afloat assemblies would be too fragile overall, specially to sabotage.
Humans being as insane as ingenious will most likely go for it anyway, if no fitter strategies are forthcoming soon.

>>11225706
It'd just be like a bottle raft floating on water. You'd have 1,000s of encapsulated cells. Cell size would be pretty big though.

>sabotage
Eh, whataboutism.

>>11225734
lol
I see.
Well,
>let's go!