/sci/ - Science & Math

Not only will it have to be big as fuck without toppling over, it has to be indestructible

Also, sounds expensive

The space elevator may be technically impossible. It depends on a material that really can't be made.

So instead of pursuing Unobtainium, how about building the next best thing? THE LAUNCH LOOP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

Building such a beast would be a necessary step, since it's a huge project relying on management of materials science, which is exactly the sort of skills that will be required for your possibly-possible space elevator anyway.

And building a space elevator already requires access to space, buttnut! The Launch Loop would assist greatly with that.

Or we use the U2 spy plane method but give it a payload of anti-matter or fusion reactors, and I mean the latest fusion reactors. Something similar to what Richard Branson is doing. The only problem is making said reactors small and capable enough of packing a punch so when we get out to space it wouldn't be too much of a hassle.

>>3962836 without toppling over

Space elevators aren't just supported at the base like a regular tower. They're pulled up from the top end by the centrifugal force of the rotating Earth. The hard part is getting a material light and strong enough to withstand the massive forces in the center. The heavier the material is the greater the forces are, so it's got to be a high strength/weight ratio, not just "fucking diamonds".

>>3962836
>toppling over

That isn't how space elevators work.

>>3962838
Carbon nanotubes can theoretically make it possible. And if the nanotubes aren't strong enough MAKE MORE NANOTUBES.

The launch loop looks good, but the initial economic estimates don't look nearly as good as a space elevator. ($2/kg would be a decent estimate for a kg to orbit in a space elevator).

It does look much cheaper to build initally though, which would be nice. Maybe we could use one to launch the space elevator's initial tether.

>>3962849
This would probably work nice, but the fusion reactors sound farther out than the tech needed for the elevator.

Lofstrom Loops lift more to LEO, can be built with available materials, use known and tested engineering principles, lift loads faster, and do not collapse instantly if broken.

The space elevator is a stupid supported for the aesthetic of a single tower rising into the sky rather than any practical reason.


Also nuclear pulse propulsion mother fuckers.

Space elevators would be hell of military targets- governments would use them to deliver munitions to space and achieve insane military superiority- bombs anywhere anytime. So anyone without a space elevator would right away want to make them, but they'd still need to develop orbital launches, better even, to be able to go shoot at other people's space elevators.

This is because people are idiots.

>>3963080
Fuck yeah.

I want an Orion battleship. Since it's powered by a drive named for the god of hunting, we'll call it the Artemis Class. The civilian freight/passenger version will be called the Hermes class.

We'll have to tweak the original 1960's design a bit though.
>EM shielding to protect against radiation
>Water storage between outer and inner hull to protect against radiation
>1 MW class FEL's (Free Electron Laser) for point defense
>Heat sinks and radiators
>Heat sinks that can "charge" inflatable decoys
>Supercooled gas to propel "stealth" kinetic kill warheads at planetside or other targets with predictable orbits/courses
>Bridge that can be filled with flurocarbon breathing fluid to protect against g-forces induced by sudden maneuvering or acceleration
>Long counterweight in the nose on a carbon nanotube tether. Once the ship has accelerated and is underway, this can be extended and the ship can be spun to produce artificial gravity.
The above is only for routine interplanetary transit under non-combat conditions.

Those are all the improvements I can imagine for now. It'd be fucking sweet to have a space elevator because then we could (reasonably) construct huge orion-drive ships in orbit.

>>3963106
Umm what? You can get a nuke into space and onto someone's head in about 20 minutes with conventional ICBM's.

Unless you want to build an orbiting platform with nukes (kinda pointless since you can deliver them by ICBM) it's worthless. The only advantage to an orbital platform would be first strike.
Since everything's so damn visible in space, any first strike would involve wiping out the enemy's platforms. There's no point to this because the end results are the same and it contains no real inherit advantage over ICBM's.

>>3962902
> Carbon nanotubes can theoretically make it possible.
> theoretically make it possible
> theoretically make it
> theoretically
> THEORETICALLY

Dude, why do you think I used the term "Unobtainium"?

The Launch Loop can be built NOW, with PRESENT TECH AND MATERIALS. Materials science would be stretched a bit, but not much; the project is very likely to reach completion. That's wholly different than trying to make the cylinder or beam or ribbon for the elevator, which today nobody has any idea how to make, even when told "take some money and come out of the lab with a ribbon".

And if you're going to build that elevator (however you'd manage it), you're still going to need to lift a lot of tonnage into LEO for boost to geosynch, to start constructing it 22000 miles downward towards the Earth. Do you seriously believe you can get all that done with ROCKETS?!!?!?!

Other than SSTO (which are not heavy lifters), the Launch Loop is the only practical next step in space launch technology. Naturally nobody with the assets to setup launches, is going to do that. Our simian natures continue to win out.

>>3963163

You said it could never be made:

>>3962838
>It depends on a material that really can't be made.

I'm saying that isn't exactly true.

>And if you're going to build that elevator (however you'd manage it), you're still going to need to lift a lot of tonnage into LEO for boost to geosynch, to start constructing it 22000 miles downward towards the Earth. Do you seriously believe you can get all that done with ROCKETS?!!?!?!

OK. Lets run some figures:
35768000m to GEO
Carbon nanotubes weigh .1gram per meter^2 (for current technology)
Space elevator will use half-meter wide nanotube cable
(((35768000m/2)*.1g/m)/1000 g/kg)=1788.4 kilograms for the tether
This is about half the payload of the SST to GEO

The counterweight is more complicated, but that doesn't have to go up all at once. So from a weight perspective we aren't looking so bad for the tether alone.

And we could use the loop to help, which is exactly what I said.

>>3963417
>.1gram per meter^2
>gram per meter ^2
>gram
>per meter
>^2
>for the weight of a fiber
Kill yourself.

>>3963444

You mad bro? You seem pretty buttdevastated at the moment.

>>3963474
It's SO painfully obvious you have NO clue what you're talking about it's not even funny.

The quantity we're looking for for is SPECIFIC STRENGTH. All fibers have a "breaking length," under which a constant-diameter fiber will simply break under it's own length under 1 G weight, and this ALSO is equivalently representative of fiber performance. Now, since not even nanotubes have the breaking length to even reach halfway to GEO, we know a constant-diameter tether is out of the question. Tapered tethers that are several times thicker around GEO than at Earth's surface are ideal, but even there it's doubtful carbon nanotubes will achieve high enough specific strength to make it happen.

inb4 comet

why does it have to be a physical tether. are there any application of energy that can be used to maintain a station in orbit?

first generation will be experimental. then we can make it more efficient as improvements are made

>>3963417

Look, you need to step out of that private Idaho in your head and come out here in the real world where our real industries are. Nobody can make the "carbon nanotubes" for this space elevator. Nobody has any idea how such things can be made in any length worth mentioning, much less sections reaching 35000 km. Such a vital component is effectively UNOBTAINIUM.

In great contrast, the Launch Loop merely presents some engineering challenges, but it can be built. There's no question about that. About the only thing that presents a terror about the structure is the oscillations in such a linear moving mass.

And you're still going to need LAUNCH CAPABILITY to get the space elevator built. You can't just launch the components; you ALSO have to launch the vast masses of fuel necessary to boost payloads from LEO to geosynch.

Welcome to reality!

>>3962838
how does this work?

>>3963510
> why does it have to be a physical tether. are there any application of energy that can be used to maintain a station in orbit?

You've been watching too much Star Trek. There are no such things as "fields" over such a distance. If you're not talking matter, you must be talking fields.

Robert Forward in one of his neutron-star novels spoke of a kinetic design, whereby the space elevator was composed of discrete rings that rose and fell in a linear line, as force carriers. No such design is possible for our elevator, since when the discrete elements enter the atmosphere whatever forces that exist between the rings would be leeched away by atmosphere.

Still, the closest you could get was some sort of linear arrangement of superconducting elements that maintained a strong magnetic link to each other. Such engineering is beyond what we have now, and it would take a long time for Humanity to arrive at anything like it. And that's not time Humanity has, since Peak Oil is already behind us, and we're staring horrifically at the vast pit of Energy Depletion, which is sure to arrive in all things we do by the year 2100 AD.

>>3962849
i was just thinking abput that! did you watch that video of the guy in one? looks like hese in outer space. the lockheed blackbird can go 15000 ft higher though.

>>3963491

I was responding to the assertion that the weight was untenable for modern rockets. I made no mention of strength anywhere nor did I suggest that strength was not a problem.

>>3963517

I'm getting a distinct lack of "don't built a launch loop" vibe in my posts. I don't remember saying this ever. Actually, I remember saying the opposite. What I am saying is that a functional space elevator would bring costs down below the launch loop in the long run. Why you are so angry about this is beyond me.

We should just make a giant catapult, like the size of a skyscraper and just fling people at Mars.

>>3963531
> how does this work?

The Launch Loop works on the concept of inertia, like a top. A top stands up against gravity because of inertia from its rotation. So imagine a hula hoop with a very fast cable inside it along the linear circle of it. With that inner cable moving at a good speed inside the plastic containment of the hoop, you can just stand up the hoop so that it remains upright. Now squish the hoop like you would a rubber band into a long double string with a loop at each end, and bend the length into an arc. That's the Launch Loop.

The forces at work at each grounded loop would be huge, since the travelling cable in the core of it would have to make high-stress turns. This can be lowered into the safety margins available by material science by making the loop a larger diameter.

So literally the Launch Loop is an arc raised 80km into the sky by the kinetic energy of the high-speed cable within it. And then that cable can be sped up when a cargo tries to climb the arc in order to get to the peak, when a remarkably smaller amount of rocket fuel would be required to attain LEO (at least 320km). The structure would be under insignificant operational stress, in comparison to the stress of the cable's speed to begin with.

The plans for the structure naturally play off the cable itself, not the sheathe. The cable would be a force carrier, like a monorail, and it's all too likely it would be some sort of linear-accelerator or monorail like design. That's likely to be how the cable is taken up to speed in the first place, and how its speed is controlled.

Of course, you don't need to rely on the cable. Your cargo vehicle could just climb the sheathe under its own power. But that's slow.

>Worrying about space and other worlds when over 90% of our oceans maintain unexplored.
You guys.

>>3963567
> Why you are so angry about this is beyond me.

Because you're chasing a boondoggle. I keep using the term UNOBTAINIUM but you keep ignoring it. And there's no particular reason to expect it to ever happen.

But with some funding and dedicated effort, a Launch Loop could stand gracefully over the Florida Everglades in 20 years. At that point, you will STILL be posting that "build a goddamn elevator", even though carbon nanotubes at that time will STILL be unable to make a ribbon 35000 kilometers in length.

>>3963650
> Worrying about space and other worlds when over 90% of our oceans maintain unexplored.

We can't colonize the ocean depths. Other than the increasingly frenzied scrabbling for resources, what's your fucking hard-on about the ocean?

>>3962854
The fuck is a centrifugal force.

>>3962813
1. true
2. not necessarily, while a space elevator is fairly efficient, space elevators are fairly slow and early space elevators are likely to be of limited payload capacity. Things will still be made to maximize usage of limited payload capacity
3. Why does one need a space elevator to mine asteroids? The mining equipment could potentially be constructed from insitu resources. Or you could use self-replicating robots to do the mining. Thus one would only need to send only one self-replicating robot up.

4. so instead of developing technologies for colonies to be self-sustaining we support colonies with earth's limited resources?

That being said space elevators are still a pretty damn good idea. It's just that we need stronger materials to make them. Current max nanotube length ~20 cm. Though they have problems with defects.

so nobody is worried about a counterweight on earths rotation...

Would someone explain the DETAILS of a launch loop to me? It sounds like a concept that's seen little REAL engineering, yet they claim it's somehow more practical than a space elevator.

So, launchloopfags, educate me. Prove me wrong.

>Manned space flight at the moment is pointless
>Suggest building a tower that would take hundreds of billions. if not trillions of dollars with current materials
>most likely cannot be built with current materials
>materials would need to be harvested from far off heavenly bodies
>the top half of the elevator would have to DESCEND FROM SPACE
>both processes need space flight
>manned space flight
>mfw OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about


Y u no science OP

>>3963080

Fuck yeah

>>3963731
>Implying the spacecraft that deploys a space elevator would need to be (or would even profit in any conceivable way from being) manned
Nope.

There is currently no job in space that actually NEEDS a heavy fucking astronaut and all his fucking life support to be done. A space elevator is no exception.

>>3963731
>both processes need space flight
>manned space flight

Yes, other than the UNOBTAINIUM factor, that's another factor. That's why I proposed the Launch Loop.

What's really going on here is that West has been dragged into another (Viet Nam) war and oil crisis, and so whatever NASA allegedly achieved will just be thrown away. The ISS will just be de-orbited and all that tonnage will be destroyed, just like with Mir and Skylab. That's what the West does with NASA: Use it to effectively launch a lot of money into space where it can never be recovered.

How much will be wasted when the ISS burns up and tumbles into the ocean? $100 billion? A private coalition of companies could have gone to Mars for that much. This is just silly. They keep doing the same wastage over and over and over and over and over and over and over and the pasty-white nerd corps never remembers any of that. They just advocate more space spending.

>>3963752

So... I'm guessing those satellites in orbit fix themselves, right?

Also screw the space elevator and launch loop. We have the technology to make a rotovator.

A rotovator is an enormous rotating electrodynamic tether, whose tip dips down to about 100 kilometers every now and then. When said tip dips down you send something like Spaceshipone(or other suborbital craft) up to it and have it match speeds and dock with the tip. When the tether rotates backup the your Spaceship is release and put into orbit.

Such a system can be built with materials that already exist. Some rotovator designs can supposedly be built for around the cost of celebrity divorce filings(priorities our culture has them...). Only problems with rotovators include deploying the hundred kilometer long tether and tether degradation due to micrometeoroids. Though if one can put one tether up, it can be used to put up other tethers, lessening the problem of degradation.

for more info look up Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital Launch(HASTOL)

>>3963752
> There is currently no job in space that actually NEEDS a heavy fucking astronaut and all his fucking life support to be done. A space elevator is no exception.

Thank you for admitting that you know nothing about manufacturing and assembly.

If moron dickwad assholes like you had their way, all you'd send up the resulting space elevator would be MORE ROBOTS.

You just DON'T FUCKING GET IT. Humans need to explore and labor and colonize, not robots.

>>3963760

The International Space Station was built to show humanity can live in space, that was its goal and it was successful in such an endeavor. The space program and manned space flight provide us the means to achieve a stepping stone into the solar system for colonization. This isn't something that may or may not happen, it will happen, the sooner the better because Earth only can support a planet of such consuming beings for so long. The ISS is in no ways a waste of money, it may look that way, but it will continue to serve it's purpose as a scientific outpost well into the future and if we deem to be a significant invest we may do our best to keep it up there.

The Launch Loop in all honesty, I don't know shit about so I'm going to read over wikipedia for a few minutes to get up to speed.

>>3963658

>Because you're chasing a boondoggle. I keep using the term UNOBTAINIUM but you keep ignoring it. And there's no particular reason to expect it to ever happen.

Oh, OK, it might not be possible. Lets just abandon everything that might be hard. I hear some people are still talking about fusion power. Talk about UNOBTANIUM huh, why haven't they abandoned that yet?

Another guy was talking about making a weird thing with wings that somehow will "fly" in the air, but that isn't possible, current cast-iron engine blocks don't have the power to get enough lift for it to work. Besides, horses and automobiles can get people around just fine, and if you want to get accross water you can just take this sweet invention called a "boat". What a moron.

>>3963658

You know that a launch loop, according to your wiki page, would have to stretch a distance equivalent to a straight shot from El Paso, TX to Chicago, IL, right?

>>3963762
>Fixing satellites instead of deorbiting and replacing them
Retard.

>>3963795

That's not what he said, what he said was make something more pratical in the mean time until we have the technology.

That's like a Cave Man saying, "Hey, Og, let's go to the moon. We'll build a tower out of rocks and get there." His caveman buddy would look at him, call him a fucking retard and walk off.

If we don't have the technology now, you build something that you can do at the moment and not waste time with. Most likely humans will be able to make such a tower but not now, and not with our current capabilities.

Deal with it.

>>3963777
Robots do the job cheaper, better, and more safely than humans. Robots don't need a quarter ton of life support equipment each. They don't need continuous resupply missions to replenish the supplies they consume. Stop being so fucking emotional about simple engineering considerations.

>>3963812

Ah yes, let me look through the thread and see the part where I said "don't build a launch loop"...nope...not seeing it. I'm looking really hard here you're going to have to help me out.

>>3963815
One more (even bigger) reason to use a robot instead of a person:

YOU DON'T NEED TO BRING A FUCKING ROBOT HOME ALIVE.

>>3963806

My good man, you are fucking retard. Or a troll. Or both.

Considering the fact you know nothing of our space capabilities it saddens me. But instead of attacking your idiocy, I'll attack your point.

There are currently 560 satellites in space that our operational. Unbeknownst to you, orbits are very delicate things, very limited. Geosynchronous orbit for example, has very limited space in... well... space. Astronauts spend the majority of their time fixing satellites that important, spy satellites, GPS ones, and by your point we should replace them. Now, like I stated, orbits get cluttered and all that, and you can just put something up there to inhabit the same space, shit doesn't that way. They degrade and fall into shit, endanger other satellites, even your space elevator would get fucked up after while up there. So astronauts fix shit so half of those satellites don't come down on our heads, to make sure the billions we spend to send them up there aren't wasted -spy satellites for example aren't cheap, and so they don't hit other precious satellites. They are doing a very tough job, one you don't know shit about.

>>3963148
there ain't no stealth in space:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php

Fluorocarbons are more dense and viscous than air and thus more difficult to breath, not to mention the difficulty removing CO2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

That being said, why should our astronauts need to have inefficient lungs in the firstplace? Why not just temporarily collapse the astronauts lungs, and directly oxygen the blood?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3792

Then you can immerse your astronauts into a fluid with the same density as the human body.

That tethered counterweight makes a pretty tempting target to shoot at...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g25G1M4EXrQ

We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

>>3963803
> You know that a launch loop, according to your wiki page, would have to stretch a distance equivalent to a straight shot from El Paso, TX to Chicago, IL, right?

Seems like that would fit well enough from a Florida ground point to a Texas ground point, lofted over the Gulf of Mexico. Sounds ideal, since few people could complain about having the loop over their homes.

>>3963767
Explain to me how the payload WOULDN'T just drag that fucker out of orbit...

Seriously, from your description, the law of conservation of energy seems to suggest that that thing's not gonna stay in orbit.

>>3963820

No, but you're trying to claim your space elevator is some grand idea, some miracle that needs to replace all our gains in space travel now because it will: LOL MAKE EVERYTHING BETTER!!!!!111!!!1

>>3963839
>there ain't no stealth in space
Ah, this comes up all the time on /k/. I'll go over all the flaws in their argument when I get out of the shower.

In the mean time, google USA-144.

>>3963839
I mentioned NONCOMBAT for the tethered counterweight. If you're in combat, the comfort of gravity is the least of your concerns.

Stealth is in quotes. You want a dumb projectile with minimal signature, close to background level. You aren't stealthing the ship.

The lung collapse bit is good thinking. Though you're right about the density problem, it's a damn lot better than the difference between air and the human body.

>>3963786
> The International Space Station was built to show humanity can live in space, that was its goal and it was successful in such an endeavor.
> DERP DERP DERP

How many fucking times does living in space have to be demonstrated, asswipe? Skylab did it, then they THREW IT AWAY. Mir did it, then they THREW IT AWAY. The ISS is doing it, then they will THROW IT AWAY.

There are two fallacies in your posting:

1. That we need to keep doing the same tests over and over and over and over without actually then DOING WHAT WE WERE TESTING FOR.

2. That we need to keep throwing away orbited mass that we spend TAXPAYER MONEY ON TO THE TUNE OF TEN THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS PER KILOGRAM.

Look, seriously: Why not go to another website where your derping stupidity is standard issue? Because when you keep doing that HERE, we just want to smash in your face.

>>3963847

I said that if it came to fruition it would render the current way we launch things into space (chemical rockets) obsolete. And what's more I was right.

I also claimed that using chemical rockets to launch things into space guaranteed that we would never get anywhere. And that was also right.

>>3963861
I should also note that the decoys are of limited use. They'll quickly radiate away any heat and aren't able to maneuver like the actual ship.
An enemy will catch onto that pretty quickly, but that might make the difference between life and death for the crew of our warship.

>>3963837
>>Astronauts spend the majority of their time fixing satellites that important, spy satellites, GPS ones, and by your point we should replace them.
That is incorrect. Unless of course by satellites you mean the international space station. There have been very few satellite servicing missions. In the whole of the Shuttle program there have been 7 satellite servicing missions. 1 of these was for the solar max satellite, the rest were for the Hubble. Sure there have been 10 classified DoD missions, though these are believed to be satellite deployments.

GPS satellites have NEVER been serviced by astronauts.

>>3963861
read the part about decoys on Project Rho.

The idea behind shooting the counterweight is to disorient the spacecraft during a period of noncombat then attack the ship while it is disoriented.

>>3963887

Indeed, no human has ever been that far from earth save the Apollo Astronauts.

>>3963864

>That we need to keep doing the same tests over and over and over and over without actually then DOING WHAT WE WERE TESTING FOR.
>same tests over and over
>same tests

You just went over to the HERPASPHERE AND LANDING DERPSVILLE

You really think that NASA does the same tests. Again. And again. The progress of man space travel has given you a lot shit, here have a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_ISS#Columbus_.28ISS_module.29

It's okay though, fuck science and human gains. Let's watch day time television.

>>3963865

>I also claimed that using chemical rockets to launch things into space guaranteed that we would never get anywhere. And that was also right.
>never get anywhere
>we put a man on the Moon

C'mon now. You're not even trying.

Also your statement isn't "right", it's a opinion, thus it cannot be right. Just saying.

>>3963898
I'm aware of Chung's opposition to decoys and his arguments are sound.

I'm not talking about a decoy that could last, I'm talking about a decoy that's good for maybe a few minutes, that's it. It'd radiate heat, but it wouldn't be able to maneuver or radiate as much heat as the ship for very long. It'd be a last-ditch tactical option, little more.

Yes, shooting the counterweight would make for a great way to attack a vessel like this by surprise. There's one issue though: you'd need to close to within range for a sufficiently accurate weapon (not missile) to hit the counterweight while the ship is in cruise phase. It hasn't decelerated or entered orbit around its destination yet, which means it's in interplanetary space. That's a big place. Any armed warship moving that close to you would likely raise more than just eyebrows.

>>3963887

Ah, my mistake on the GPS satellites then.

But I would like some source on your other info, please.

>>3963864
>>That we need to keep doing the same tests over and over and over and over without actually then DOING WHAT WE WERE TESTING FOR.
except we aren't doing the same tests over and over again. Not to mention, we still need to do some more work on the effects of living in space.
>>That we need to keep throwing away orbited mass that we spend TAXPAYER MONEY ON TO THE TUNE OF TEN THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS PER KILOGRAM.
it's a heck of a lot better to throw away orbited mass then to have it turn into a Kessler Syndrome

That being said, the ISS does sort of suck.

>>3963912
>>3963912
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions

>>3963907

We put a grand total of 12 people on the moon 40 years ago. Combine them all and we have spent less than 4 earth days on the moon. The last 40 years have been spent derping around in low earth orbit doing absofuckinglutely nothing. NASA built a spaceship that was deliberately designed to be as expensive and complicated as possible not because it was good or safe but because they wanted to "create jobs". And boy did it show.

There are currently no plans to return, and until we massively reduce the cost of getting material into space that won't change. So instead of pouring shit tons of money into bullshit like the ISS, put that money into methods of massively reducing the cost of getting men and material into space.

>>3963887
Thanks for the assist. Some people obviously have a hard time understanding concept of cost/benefit analysis.

>>3963887
> GPS satellites have NEVER been serviced by astronauts.

Correct. It seems even a lot of /sci/tards are fairly ignorant about where geosych really is: 35 THOUSAND kilometers up. Nobody goes there; it would take a significant booster rocket to get there, and Humanity's manned spaceflight quickly devolved to LEO only, then even that essentially collapsed. Humanity will soon abandon manned flights of any kind.

The Space Shuttle was another boondoggle sold on a lie to the American people. In comparison to the number of flights, the number of returned satellites was effectively ZERO. The preferred method of returning a satellite is called DESTRUCTIVE RE-ENTRY. Even the one we allegedly designed to re-enter intact, still got all smashed to fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(spacecraft)

The reason why these absurdities exist and are just getting worse, is that Humanity on the whole never actually believed in spaceflight. Only a fairly tiny percentage of the population did, and they were just pasty white basement dwellers primarily, who were really relegated to the sciences due to their inability to convince a women to spread her legs for them.

we will need a method of mass producing carbon nanotubes on the extremely cheap before this will be possible. since nanotubes will revolutionize everything from spaceships to computers to medicine to quite honestly fucking everything is going to get better once the nanotube revolution kicks in. till then a space elevator isn't going to be possible.

the tech involved is like a century away if we're lucky sorry.

space-ex is working on a completely reusable rocket system. about 20 tons to orbit for about $250,000 whihc is pretty fucking good. combine that with orbital refueling stations and we have something far more realistic.

The reason why these absurdities exist and are just getting worse, is that Humanity on the whole never actually believed in spaceflight. >Only a fairly tiny percentage of the population did, and they were just pasty white basement dwellers primarily, who were really relegated to the sciences due to their inability to convince a women to spread her legs for them.

The man in the picture would like to have a word with you. And so would the Russians.

And saying space exploration isn't necessary for the continuity of our species for the future.

Alright...

Well... I'm out.

>>3963914
> Not to mention, we still need to do some more work on the effects of living in space.

No, we don't. You're a poster child for "paralysis by analysis". If people like you had had their way, nobody would have crossed the Atlantic Ocean from Europe to colonize the Americas (incidentally killing off those redskins) since it would have been studied and studied and studied and studied and studied and studied and studied, with nothing ultimately being done.

The only thing that needs to be studied about space living is data collected from people who JUST FUCKING GO THERE AND LIVE PERMANENTLY. Adaptive behaviors and medicines and even surgery can just keep up with what results.

>>3963970
> The man in the picture would like to have a word with you. And so would the Russians.

Firstly, what part of "on the whole" proved so frightfully difficult for you to comprehend?

Secondly, the Cold War produced a LOT of obvious and unsustainable posturing, none of which denied anything I said.

The overwhelming majority of Humanity doesn't believe in spaceflight. PERIOD. Your Cheetos-eating basement goblins aren't going to change that.

Assuming a space elevator is built: how are you supposed to take it down when its service life eventually ends?

>>3963982
>The overwhelming majority of Humanity doesn't believe in spaceflight. PERIOD.

wrong there mate, just look at some of the most popular cable TV channels - Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. And their most popular shows are usually space based.

>>3963982

The majority of humanity has their heads so far up their asses they'd mine the planet clean and literally cut down the rainforests. If you're trying to advocate for their intelligence, please, don't use the whole of humanity. For obvious reasons.

>>3963991
you'd take it up, not down

>>3963991

With a gigantic pair of scissors.

>>3963845
>>3963845
>>3963845
Said tether is an electrodynamic tether, essentially it's a gigantic electric motor that reacts against Earth's magnetic field. The energy to counteract atmospheric drag and to accelerate spacecraft comes from the sun. Pic related.

Wikipedia has a much better explanation of electrodynamic tethers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether
and so does Tethers Unlimited, a company that wants to make tethers for satellite deorbiting and what not:
http://www.tethers.com/OrbitToOrbit.html
http://www.tethers.com/OrbitToOrbit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether

I understand that a space elevator could be built on the moon using materials as common as Kevlar.

Has anyone done a similar calculation for one on Mars?

>>3963994
> wrong there mate, just look at some of the most popular cable TV channels - Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. And their most popular shows are usually space based.

Bullshit. Post stats or such demon cock for eternity.

If the space effort was really that popular, space funding would follow. What then follows? WAR AND SEX AND MEDICINE.

You stupid pasty-white basement bugbear.

>>3964048

Mars actually has a bit of a problem when it comes to space elevators that wouldn't exist on the moon or earth.

>>3964017
Curious. I think this actually more promptly warrants further research than any of these other concepts - if only via application of electrodynamic tethers (to reboost the ISS, perhaps?).

(Does it NEED to be hypersonic, though? Can't you just spin it a little faster so you can manage it with a subsonic aircraft? The notion of requiring hypersonic aircraft that don't exist alone is enough to kill the concept).

>>3964086

The US Air Force is currently in the test phase of a hypersonic aircraft.

>>3964086
You need to speed match with the tether. Also, you might be able to decrease the tether rotational period by increasing tether length. I'll have to investigate this later though, as I need sleep.

>>3964097
Gliders. Rocket-boosted hypersonic gliders. Good luck "docking" with anything with a glider.

And besides, there's hypersonic and then there's hypersonic. The fastest speed ANY airbreather has achieved is just under mach 10, and that was with no payload, a massive solid-rocket first stage AND fuel for only 10 seconds of flight. The necessity of hypersonic flight should be avoided at all costs.

Wait a second, why bother with an airborne rendezvous at all? Fuck "hypersonic." Let's just use a rocket and rendezvous suborbitally. That's easily possible already (though doing it with an accelerating tether tip is going to be challenging, period). In any case, the velocity required should be reduced AT ALL COSTS. I cannot stress this enough.

So, just what speed WOULD a tether need? Where IS the minimum that is theoretically possible?

>>3964079
The tether can be programmed to swing a little every time Phobos or Deimos come around.

>>3964138
Deimos is beyond ASO, so I don't think it'd be a problem.

>>3964176
So the answer is 17,100 km, or about half the altitude required for earth (35,700 km).
And Deimos orbits at...
>Semi-major axis 23,460 kilometres (14,580 mi)

So yeah, only Phobos to worry about, even with a counterweight.

>>3964188
Woah woah woah...

Could we maybe CAPTURE Deimos and use IT as a counterweight?

>>3964199
Exactly, it's in a perfect place for a prospective factory to be planted there, to create CNT elevator tether, as well as edging into orbit where we need it.

>>3964204
Deimos got Carbon for making the CNTs?

>>3964204
Well... now that I think about it, a tether lowered into the Martian atmosphere would be dragged in a prograde direction, so unless you had a tether strong enough to literally winch it down, you'd be stuck with a moving tether.

Lifting a counterweight from Phobos is considerably easier than lifting it from Mars, though.

>>3964216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_%28moon%29#Physical
>Deimos, like Mars' other moon Phobos, has spectra, albedos and densities similar to those of a C- or D-type asteroid. Like most bodies of its size, Deimos is highly non-spherical with dimensions of 15 × 12.2 × 10.4 km. Deimos is composed of rock rich in carbonaceous material, much like C-type asteroids and carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.

>>3964216
>Deimos is composed of rock rich in carbonaceous material, much like C-type asteroids and carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.
-wiki

>>3964204
The current orbit is stable.
Attempting to tether an orbiting moon will apply an extra force to it and pull it towards the planet.
You can not use it as a counterweight.

>>3964227
>never took physics class beyond high school

>>3964233
Correct, I did not.
I do not suspect tethering moons is information that is covered in most physics classes.
Nevertheless, I suspect by common sense that applying an extra force to an orbiting body will disrupt its orbit.

>>3964138
>>3964176
>>3964188
>>3964199
>>3964204

Of course, we should just ram Phobos into Mars intentionally to aid in terraforming it. No more phobos ruining our martian space elevator plans.

>>3964240
If you have Deimos beyond aerostationary orbit while it's anchored to a cable, you are essentially swinging a rock on a rope around the planet, which keeps the cable straight and upright, and prevents Phobos from falling as it's constantly being forced into a direction away from the planet. Similar effect to swinging a bucket of water round and round.

Unsure if I explained that well, if I didn't, someone else can correct me.

>>3964243
Mars would need a thicker atmosphere before plowing such a meteorite into the atmosphere for lots of extra heat would work. And you'd need to heat up Mars with orbital mirrors reflecting additional sunlight on it, likely produced from Phobos first before you'd use Phobos as a kamikaze asteroid. And at that point you already have established colonies all over the planet where it would become unwieldy to move them all off world for a decade while the dust settles down.

>>3964240
Yes, an external force will mean that it will be modified from a typical orbit. That's okay, though - that's part of the principle of how a space elevator works.

The issue here is that it'd be impossible to make a tether strong enough to winch Phobos down to an altitude where it would (by conservation of angular momentum) be brought down to a synchronous rotation rate.

>>3964251
The conker on the string is a model that is used just to explain gravity on its own; with no other force involved.
To add an extra inward force would be like a conquer with 2 strings, both pulling it inwards.
It would be as if you are swinging a conker around your hand, but a retracting string is also is added while you are swinging the conquer, which retracts itself.
I think that the orbit would become closer to your hand and would speed up.

>>3964270
You make the outward force stronger than the inward force and have a tether strong enough to withstand the tension. I.e. carbon nanotubes.

>>3964257

I was thinking more along the lines of the massive heat generated when it struck the planet more than the heat generated as it burned in the atmosphere. Then I was hoping a thicker atmosphere would be a side effect of the ramming.

>>3964277
Nah you're sort of right, it's the heat of the ejecta from the impact site falling back from space into the Martian atmosphere that produces most of the heat. And that's exactly why a thicker atmosphere of 150 millibars would be desirable.

>>3964257
Well, ignoring my thoughts on the plausibility of terraforming Mars, I don't think that's true. Mars's atmosphere is thick enough for aerobraking to work effectively, and even if JUST a tether doesn't produce enough drag, there are ways of magnifying drag (i.e. a drogue ballute on the atmospheric end) if it is needed.

>>3964276
The outwards and inwards forces are already balanced. That is why the orbiting body maintains its altitude and has a stable orbit.
The centripetal force counteracts the affect of gravity.
Adding an extra force upsets the balance.
Forces are imbalanced, therefore the moon will begin to accelerate inwards towards the planet.
It will spiral inwards.

>>3964291
I'm sure you've embarrassed the NASA engineers who designed such concepts completely with your brilliant deduction.

>>3964285

No magnetic field. Enjoy your radiation.

Mars is dead. Maybe ceres has some possibility, but we're going to actually have to put money into a space program.

Which isn't going to happen.

>>3964296
>Implying NASA scientists invented the space elevator

>>3964296
That was my understanding.
I have not taken advanced physics.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
I like to learn.

>>3964299
Wait, what are you talking about?

Please tell me you quoted the wrong post, because I'm REALLY fucking confused here.

>>3964299
Because of Mars' 0.376Gs, the atmosphere has a scale height of about two and a half that of Earth. So even a thin atmosphere would be sufficient at shielding most harmful radiation out, not to mention that Mars only receives around 47% the sunlight of Earth. It might be easier to get sunburnt, but the problem is not as huge as you think. And if we have the ability to terraform an entire planet. why does that rule out an artificial planetary magnetic field being constructed?

Also I lol'd when you mentioned Ceres would be better than Mars. 0.01Gs, likely no atmosphere, and in a part of space that's infested with micrometeorites.

>>3964303
As you pull in on the planet, it's angular velocity increases due to conservation of angular momentum. This increases the needed centripetal force required to hold it there.

>>3964299
>>3964299

>Implying we can't fix that

>>3964315
So the forces are balanced once again. This makes sense, thankyou.

>>3964327
In a way, you can think of it as if you're tugging on the planet to make it follow a tighter curve. That may be the most straightforward, visual way to look at it.

The reason Earth hasn't had it's atmosphere stripped away is we have a molten iron core that has an electromagnetic field that keeps radiation out and produces the northern and southern lights, among other things.

Mars HAD an atmosphere, but it was stripped away by the solar wind, something we are shielded from. Mars would only be a place to live if we were underground and EM shielded 24/7.

>>3964346
Not all of Mars' atmosphere was stripped away. Much of it is frozen in the soil at the polar latitudes, or oxide rocks all over the planet. That's one of the main reasons for Mars' rusty colour.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/mars-south-pole-holds-nearly-an-atmospheres-worth-of-co2
.ars
Also,
>>3964310

>>3964351
Perhaps we could drive some gigantic metal rods into the poles and heat them up to make the atmosphere come back before we suffocate.

>>3964346
But Venus has an atmosphere and no magnetic field...and it is closer to the sun. How did that happen?

>Space Elevator

Cool, but ultimately pointless.

Seriously, don't even try to justify building one, let alone NOW.

>>3964366
>Perhaps we could drive some gigantic metal rods into the poles and heat them up to make the atmosphere come back before we suffocate.
An easier and similar method is setting off thermonuclear weapons in the ice cap, but yeah, radiation problems. It would be easier just to focus more solar radiation on the ice caps, leading to an outgassing of CO2 so mars can have a greenhouse effect which promotes more outgassing and the formation of equatorial seas.

>>3964374

watch?v=4PxNVGnibok

>>3964346
Explain Venus, then.

>>3964380
>>3964366
Venus has different tectonic processes. It also has a lot of volcanoes which create its atmosphere.

>>3964380
>>3964387
Sorta. Venus had a very active volcanic past, leading to a very thick atmosphere. Because of a lack of a large, long-lived ocean on the planet (if at all) very little of it was made into carbonate rocks. So Venus has probably lost loads of atmosphere (as it gets something like 400% the solar radiation Earth does) but it had enough to start with so that it's still fucking thick as hell.

>>3964387
Ah.

So how do we make more volcanoes on Mars start erupting?

How the fuck did this thread become about terraforming?

>>3964448

i dont know but ....

>>3964448

New question:

Can we terraform /pol/ into a habitable space?

>>3964448
because geek wanking.

I say nukes fix everything. nukes fix terraforming, nukes fix propulsion, nukes fix power crises. Nuclear energy is best energy.

Only one thing stands in our way gentleman, and that is hippies.

>>3962813

>we need more thread like this

To be frank, I'd much rather we invest in a myriad of intergalactic probes instead of manned space flights at the moment. Don't get me wrong, it's plenty cool that we can put someone on a few tons of rocket fuel and launch them into space, but we currently have no need for at the moment.

1) Invest heavily into galaxy class probes to planet hunt
2) Invest in to new forms of telescopic technologies to again, planet hunt
3) Develop new means of propulsion and life support systems which would actually allow us to make planetary manned missions instead of just floating within our own orbit


I'm all for next generation ventures into space, but we need to stop wasting money on orbital missions and spend it on the innovation that's going to get us out there past our own little bubble.

>>3964478

We have hardly left Earth orbit, and you are dreaming about other star systems aready?

We will not leave solar system before there are mature colonies on Jovian moons, at least.

I got a question.

How do we get a space elevator erected?

To my understanding, its held up by the centrifugal force of the earth spinning yeah? So its not like a building where we make the frame as we climb up it. Is it more like we build a really long rope that will stand up when the end is spinning around the earth?

How do we get that rope into space?

>>3964508
You need to build the tether in space, from asteroid rock.

>>3962813

We'd likely attach a massive tether to a rocket and shoot it into orbit, where we would have had an already orbiting installation which will take the tether and dock it. Though we first need to creature a type of material that could withstand the extreme weight that would be placed on it, which we have not yet.

Though to be honest, I'm against the idea of a space elevator. Inefficient and unpractical. The only things I see worthwhile regarding the project are the technologies developed to actually be able to create one.

>>3964514

ooooOOOOOOh.

Then how do you tether it to the earth?

>>3964514
Why the fuck would that be? Just launch it on a rocket, for fuck's sake. Stop trying to invent justification for asteroid mining.

>>3964519
Lower it down. I would assume you'd have large hovercrafts to stabilize the cable as it came through the atmosphere to the anchoring point. Not an intractable problem.

>>3964518
Lolno
You'd lift the whole thing into orbit, and simply lower it to the surface from the top down. It's really not nearly as complicated as it initially sounds.

>>3964524

But youd be in orbit. So you would have to be in a geosynchronous orbit around the equator.

So a space elevator would have to be at the equator?

Lowering the tether to the earth from space sounds like it would be quite a feat.

>>3964522
Do you drink bleach? Thousands of kilometers of 2 meter wide carbon nanotubes strong enough to withstand many micrometeoroid impacts is going to weigh tens of millions of tonnes, if not in excess of a billion (for an Earth one)

>>3964524
Why would it need stabilization? Any forces it encounters dangling are going to be encountered once secured as well. I see no harm in simply lowering it right to the surface.

>>3964533
You're going to have a long cable buffeted by some wings which will cause it to sway, making it hard to lower it into the base station to secure it. You need to keep it relatively still.

You organics are always complaining about micrometeors.

>>3964528
That doesn't bode very well for your asteroid-mining scheme either, seeing how there are no asteroids conveniently located at GEO.

It's pretty much a given that the elevator will need to be launched in pieces. And the idea of building a full-size elevator the first time is retarded; start with a small (thin) one and have small climbers add additional strands to the tether until it grows large enough to lift real payloads.

>>3964540
>Drop it in the ocean
>Doesn't matter where it lands exactly
>Drive a boat up to it and fish it out
Problem solved.

>>3964544
To launch up enough mass to construct an entire space elevator would cost tens of trillions of dollars. There are near-Earth asteroids however, that can be nudged into orbit around Earth and then driven into the orbit we need.

>>3964528
>Micrometeoroid impacts
Bitch, please.
http://setas-www.larc.nasa.gov/LDEF/MET_DEB/md_impact.html
Does any of that look big enough to bring down a fucking space elevator?

>>3964551
How massive are these asteroids, may I ask?

>>3964551
My god, you're fucking retarded.
>Driving a WOLE FUCKING ASTEROID from heliocentric orbit to GEO somehow cheaper than launching a space elevator from Earth

>>3964562
You DON'T want a structurally weakened space elevator after 200 years.

>>3964564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

>>3964568
Yeah, it is. If you have the technology to manufacture high quality carbon nanotube tether, chances are you already have systems for extracting and seperating all elements for use, as well as something related to 3D printing. This means you could also print rocket parts, crude robots, and store oxygen/hydrogen extracted from the regolith in refining. Since such an operation is likely to cost less than 50 billion 15 to 20 years from now, it's not infeasible.

>>3964569
>You DON'T want a structurally weakened space elevator after 200 years.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BARRIERS THAT ARE MILLIMETERS THICK
And here you are, suggesting we're gonna need a TWO-METER THICK BUNDLE OF NANOTUBES just to deal with space debris?

Fuck.

Besides, as said in [>>3964544], once you have one elevator up, extending or replacing it becomes a breeze. All you do is lift more fibers up and add them to the bundle (or another bundle).

>>3964578
Let me get this straight.

You thing it'd be cheaper to maneuver an asteroid - which weighs on the order of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF TONS - from deep space into medium Earth orbit is somehow cheaper than launching a few million tons from Earth?

That's not just retarded. That's BEYOND retarded. That's single-cell life form level of cognition, that is.

>>3962813

i know /sci/ dont like Kaku but ...

>MFW this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYYdh84pFng

>1980s
Having computers the size of your hand being doing 70ish MFLOPS.

>2011
Every fucking 200$ Smartphone.

Seriously guys it's only a question of decades just like Fusion Power, practical Laser weapons and "Force Fields" to protect it from micro meteorites.

>>3964610
>it's only a question of decades just like Fusion Power
That's exactly what they said about fusion a few decades ago. I don't think you could have picked a worse technology to compare to.

>>3964601
First off, you're not strapping fifty rockets the size of a Saturn V and then pushing it directly toward Earth, you're using small nudges and taking advantage of different gravitational fields to slip into an eccentric Earth orbit which can then be normalized. The main propulsion of the asteroid likely wouldn't be rockets, but mass drivers which would fire asteroid rock away at extremely high speed using electricity and magnetism.
As for the 'space elevator that weighs a few million tons,' it's more likely to be hundreds of millions of tonnes, and you act like a few million tons is nothing.


1 short ton = 2000 pounds
http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/110405-spacex-launch-falcon-heavy.html
>Musk said the rocket should lower the launch cost of cargo to about $1,000 per pound, about one-tenth the cost per pound on NASA shuttle launches.
3 500 000 short tons = 7 000 000 000 pounds
7 000 000 000 x 1000 = 7.0 × 1012 dollars.

>Manned space flight at the moment is pointless.

>The thing we should be concentrating on instead of manned space flight is space elevators. Here are some facts:

>no facts, only opinions

>>3964616
Well Fusion power is kind of a problem yes okay I admit that but it's a physics problem not a technology problem. Look at the last 3 decades of material science,it's really gone a long way, and unlike Fusion that has the inherent physics problem of requiring some form of compression, in nature gravity does it, but on a small scale you need magnetic fields that costs shitons of energy to make, a space elevator is only limited by the material science problem, again yes physics but unlike fusion it does not require constant power input.

While I'm a very PRO FUSION guy, I think a Space Elevator is much more realistic from a physics perspective then a fusion powerplant.

We need to develop ways of discarding waste products into outer space. Like a toilet, using water pressure to flush into a space pipe.

>>3964629
>Musk said
>Musk

Oh lordy

>I've made a revolutionary electric car!
Permabroken lotus with an electric motor crowbarred in. Lose money hand over fist. Throw a shitfit when anyone calls you out on your bullshit.
>I've revolutionised space travel! Look at how much cheaper it is!
Use existing technology. Slightly tweak old rocket engine, claim brand new. Don't have to build any infrastructure, use stuff that's already been built by government. Massage figures so that NASA launches factor in R&D for everything, infrastructure and other projects.
>I'm the new Howard Hughes!
Be a horrible little man. Be hated by all your staff, try and entrap them occasionally due to paranoia. Make all money on internet bubble, lose money everywhere else. Give self title of "Chief designer". Do no designing. Appear in Iron Man 2 for 3 seconds.

Yes, he clearly is the new nerd messiah you all make him out to be.

>>3964657
Thanks for proving my point further, meaning that if it doesn't work then it's all the more expensive to launch up a space elevator from Earth.

>>3964657

To be fair Elon Musk is my nerd messiah. A lot of people on /sci/ are critical of him. The majority of us around here dont worship him. Many see his optimism as self promotion.

>>3964629
You seem to be hopelessly delusional about the harsh nature of orbital mechanics.

The fact of the matter is that those "nudges" are ultimately going to have to add up to orders of magnitude more impulse than it'd take to launch the elevator.

I know the notion of stimulating usustainable space economies gives you a massive hardon, but you need to quit thinking with your dick, so to speak.

>>3964663
That wasn't me, I actually do respect SpaceX and what they're trying to do.

But you're still a fucking retard.

>>3964680
I'll assume since you don't have a rebuttal besides an insult, that you lost and are mad.

>>3964679
Are you really saying that you can't have railguns constructed from asteroid material with a small nuclear reactor while primitive robots scoop up regolith for them to fire away? Really?

>>3964682

Holy crap I own that same shirt. Elon Musk and I are shirt bros.

>>3964682
>I'll assume since you don't have a rebuttal besides an insult, that you lost and are mad.
I already put forth my rebuttal, and you've ignored it. So here, I'll restate it:

AN ASTEROID IS A SHITTON HEAVIER THAN A SPACE TETHER, HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY BE CHEAPER TO PUSH INTO G.E.O. THAN JUST LAUNCHING THE FUCKING TETHER FROM EARTH?!?!?!?!?!

>Are you really saying that you can't have railguns constructed from asteroid material with a small nuclear reactor while primitive robots scoop up regolith for them to fire away? Really?
Well, that's not what I WAS saying, but yes, I'll go ahead and say that too.

I find it positively hilarious that you view lifting a modestly-sized space tether (and yes, contrary to what you say, it IS possible to actually build a space elevator that's less than TWO FUCKING METERS THICK) to be some impossible endeavor, yet you view driving an asteroid around the solar system like a rocket ship as if it's no big deal. There is something seriously wrong with your head, bro.

>>3964705
>AN ASTEROID IS A SHITTON HEAVIER THAN A SPACE TETHER, HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY BE CHEAPER TO PUSH INTO G.E.O. THAN JUST LAUNCHING THE FUCKING TETHER FROM EARTH?!
Because electricity can be provided by a nuclear reactor launched to the site (LFTR) and thorium from the mining process of the asteroid can replenish its energy. The massive megawatts of power that it could produce could fire large chunks of debris at very high speeds if a simple mass driver/railgun was also set up out of asteroid materials. It would use similar technologies that would be required for commercial asteroid mining in order to keep down costs by several orders of magnitude. Whereas where you launch rockets, you need like 10 - 50 million per launch for maybe up to 100 tonnes, and you'd need to transport hundreds of millions of tonnes up. You're talking about transporting material out of a deep terrestrial gravity well which is essentially congealed asteroids when the same materials are abundant in space rock with little gravitational field and similar orbits to our planet. It's just a matter of accessing it.

>>3964705

>I find it positively hilarious that you view lifting a modestly-sized space tether (and yes, contrary to what you say, it IS possible to actually build a space elevator that's less than TWO FUCKING METERS THICK)
I said two meters wide. enough strength for a 5 tonne elevator car which would need to supply life support and radiation shielding as well as a motor/power source for the days-long trip to the end of the cable.

>yet you view driving an asteroid around the solar system like a rocket ship as if it's no big deal.
You wish to co-ordinate MILLIONS of rocket launches over the period of a century of launching up material at exorbitant prices, while we know the orbital characteristics of asteroids as well as the gravity, kinetic energy of it and all nearby surrounding bodies. It's a matter of physics and engineering to apply the power in the way you want. Mass drivers aren't some devilishly complicated device, you can build a rough version of one with normal magnets, ball bearings and a ruler (also known as a Gauss gun.)

Space elevators are tragedy material, I mean each section is moving at a different speed, and it is totally unelegant

Imagine all the long, awkward silences

>>3964764
VR shows up around the same period of time as such a project like this becomes feasible.

Trading one brute force method for another. Maybe we can stack spacefags on top of each other and pull shit into space.

>>3964779
I'd love to hear a better suggestion.

How much slower would one day be if we built a space elevator?

>>3964787

A few hours atleast

>>3964784
You want my suggestion? Balloons. Lots of em.

>>3964804

Really?

But the mass of the elevator is so small relative to the mass of the earth.

>>3964818

I'm sure the drag would slow down the rotation somewhat

imagine someone farting on the way up in a space elevator

>>3964826

What drag?

>>3964841

Solar wind

>>3964804

Nah, probably not even a minute

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2%2F5*%28mass+earth%29*%28radius+earth%29%5E2

and the moment of the elevator considered as a rod is incredibly tiny compared

>>3964732
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_construction#Cable_seeding_design
>Launch mass: 20 tons
There are rockets that can handle that in a single launch RIGHT NOW.

space x

/thread

>>3962813

>postulates about yet fictitious mega-engineering feats
>calls them facts