/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1662415]

How many of you think that a Space Elevator is a likelihood sometime in the next 50 years?

[Anomynous No.1662417]

If advancements in carbon nanotubes continue at the rate their going, I'd give it fair odds.

[Anonymous No.1662422]

>>1662417
I don't
We should just find a more efficient way of launching things into space
Like a giant air canon

[Anonymous No.1662425]

I'd rather see more money going into Beam Propulsion.

[Anonymous No.1662427]

>>1662415
HAHAHA...ah...

Thanks, I needed that.

[Anonymous No.1662428]

>>1662427
I'm pretty sure we have better odds of building a gigantic air canon than a freaking space elevator

[Anonymous No.1662432]

quite possible, i'd LIKE 20 years but that might be difficult.
>>1662417
also it's not going to be carbon nanotubes. they're impossible to manufacture in continuous strands and that's the only way to make something strong enough. another problem is deploying the cable (which is 24,000 miles long) straight up.

yes, twenty four THOUSAND miles

[Anomynous No.1662439]

>>1662428
>air cannon
Do you have the faintest idea what kind of initial velocity you need to get into orbit?

>>1662432
>getting the cable into place
People have thought this over, you launch it into space and lower it down to earth.

[Anonymous No.1662451]

>>1662439
launch 24,000 miles worth of cable?
i'd say it would be better to find some way to produce the cable by way of an autonomous robot that can be continuously given the materials to make the rope, like a spider spinning a web.

it's take a year or two to get from the top to the bottom, and you'd need to ship of lot of the "rope liquid" up, but it's probably more economical

[Anonymous No.1662452]

>>1662439

fa·ce·tious
   [fuh-see-shuhs]

–adjective1.not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2.amusing; humorous.
3.lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential,amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.


FAG.

[Anonymous No.1662455]

The Japs seem pretty confident that can make it work.

We'll see. People toss around nanotubes as a possibility, but from what I understand a nanotube "chain" of sufficient strength would require extremely exact placing of every "link" in the chain. And I have heard that quantum effects will prevent such a perfect carbon nanotube chain from ever being assembled.

[Anomynous No.1662458]

>>1662451
Point being, if we can work out how to manufacture CNT/CCTs of any desired length, we're pretty much set to start testing if the long tubes have the required tensile strength.

[Anomynous No.1662464]

>>1662452
>implying the tones of inflection are transmitted through text

>>1662455
It's just a ridiculously large molecule of carbon, like a buckeyball, but a cylinder instead of a sphere.

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.1662466]

space elevator? awesome, we could build a city on space controlled by an AI, and even one on a lower altitude to be purposed as a counterweight, stabilizing it all.
this could be meant to raise the most advanced civilization and use factories on the surface to bring all kind of needs, materials and power.

this looks promising and cute for the future, eee~

[Anonymous No.1662467]

>>1662464
it's a matter of getting all those ridiculously large molecules to line up with each other. They don't like to do that as it gets longer and longer.

[Anomynous No.1662480]

>>1662466
Shall we name them Tiphares and Kithares?

>>1662467
They've made CNTs as long as 18.5cm so far:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl901260b
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19650638

[Anonymous No.1662485]

>>1662480
18.5cm falls well short of 24,000 miles.

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.1662487]

>>1662480
sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.1662490]

i seriosly dont see the point of a space elevator i just see it as a waste of time and resources anyone please tell me how a space elevator can be helpful

[Anomynous No.1662494]

>>1662485
>it isn't long enough now and it wont be in 50 years!
Mind you, this is up from micrometers two years ago.

[Anomynous No.1662505]

>>1662490
>how can a space elevator be helpful
It is currently very, very expensive per kg to send things into space. A space elevator cuts the cost by 3-4 orders of magnitude. Imagine buying a new car for $43. That's why they're useful.

[Anonymous No.1662508]

>>1662490
namely, it would negate the much more expensive costs of launching things into space. You're also not considering the tourism possibilities. Put a Zero G Hotel at the top of the counterweight, and suddenly you've got the most exclusive and expensive hotel not of this world. It would help to offset some of the costs, at least.

[Anonymous No.1662515]

>>1662494
two micrometers?
well, hell.
within 50 years, they may be able to get a whole yard of nanotube.

[Anonymous No.1662518]

>>1662480
>>1662494
keep in mind quantum effects are going to fuck with CNTs big time. they won't want to stay stable at that scale for very long

and you can't just "engineer around" quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.1662519]

this is not an area i'm familliar with, but would i be right in saying that once a space elevator is assembled it would start the long proccess of bringing space travel to the masses.

How much more economical would an elevator be?

[Anomynous No.1662530]

>>1662515
Two years ago: 2 micrometers
This year: 18 centimeters
You: HURR

[Anonymous No.1662532]

>>1662490
why spend billions on rocket fuel and maintenance to get a ton of material up into space for stations and shit

when you can just ship it up space elevators for fucking 100k grand, which is peanuts. the only problem is the transit takes like 3 months but fuck it who cares.

also one elevator can ship up the parts to build more and more and more

[Anonymous No.1662538]

>>1662519
Yes. Most proposals to build a space elevator also have a heavy consumer portion. It's really the only way to offset costs. The only real operational costs would be maintenance and whatever fuel the climber used - but some proposals have the climber being solar-powered.

[Anomynous No.1662541]

>>1662518
What quantum effects? Would I be incorrect in thinking that those stop being important after you get larger than a few nanometers?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1662550]

>>1662518

Huh. I though those only affected subatomic particles, not the atoms themselves.

Which shouldn't be much of a situation since the space elevator's tether is not a single strand of buckytube.

[Anonymous No.1662555]

>>1662494
2 micrometers to 18.5cm in 5 years....
that means it'll be 171 kilometers long in 50 years.
which is still only 106 miles :(

[Anomynous No.1662564]

>>1662555
>linear technological extrapolation

[Anonymous No.1662566]

>>1662550
>since the space elevator's tether is not a single strand of buckytube.
bad news
for the space elevator to work, it needs to be

>>1662538
solar power is a pretty good idea, since efficiency will probably be very high at that point (50 years from now) and a decent solar array could power the climber pretty easily.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1662574]

>>1662566

>for the space elevator to work, it needs to be

Why?

[None !tAlnE2rqAo No.1662577]

why not go around the issues with creating one single strand and use some sort of chain link type option? the links could be like 8 miles long or something that is quite long, but feasible in the near future, much more feasible than 240,000 miles.

[Anonymous No.1662580]

>>1662574
I believe it's solely for tensile strength.

[Anonymous No.1662585]

>>1662577
>implying you base any of your uneducated opinions on anything

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.1662588]

>>1662580

So a few thousands of strands of buckytube coiled into a rope have less tensile strenght that a single strand?

I don't know much about material science so yeah.

[Anonymous No.1662589]

>>1662415
We wont.
1. Nobody will want to fund it
2. We can't even properly manage things that sit on the ground, how the fuck do you expect we'll be able to manage something that if it fails will likely kill thousands of people?
3. I really don't see it as being practical anyway

[Anonymous No.1662606]

>Nobody will want to fund it
Everyone who's tired of paying $200 million dollars every time they want a comm satelite launched will want to fund it.

> I really don't see it as being practical anyway
You're blind then, everything from electricity to airplanes went through the same shit. People couldn't see a use for these curious distractions, best stick to what you know.

[Anonymous No.1662670]

Is it possible? I think so. But I dont think it is practical by any means. A mass driver would be way better.

[Anonymous No.1662685]

>>1662588
well, look at it this way;

in order for deployment to be feasible, the entire rope needs to weigh X.
it has to have a tensil strength of Y

the ONLY KNOWN SUBSTANCE THUS FAR which can accomplish this is a single uninterrupted strand of CNT rope. not molecular bundles, one unbroken strand

this is why CNTs are a pipe dream, it's better to pursue other polymers that can be synthesized on the fly from raw materials like what
>>1662451
suggested, a spiderbot

[Anonymous No.1662687]

>>1662589

> 1. Nobody will want to fund it

The Japanese seem interested in it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece

There's a good chance they'll fund it if it ever proves feasible.

[Anomynous No.1662707]

>>1662670
>mass driver
As a replacement for a first stage, it's an option, but if you thought that a space elevator was expensive, wait until you figure the price tag for a mass driver that crosses most of the continental US.

[op No.1662727]

I just had to post this pic

[Anonymous No.1662746]

>>1662707
The is the point. I wouldnt go as far as trying to go from surface to space. But it would be a lot easier. Also, circular tracks with a launch path is an option in reducing "overall length". Having a mass driver would make the fuel weight requirements less which would be a godsend within itself. And even so, things on the ground are far easier to maintain than things at varying distance upward to 240,000 miles.

Mass drivers are more practical and more doable with our current technology.

[Anonymous No.1662751]

>>1662439
>giant air canon
Impossible, do you know how big it would have to be? you're stupid duuuuuuur
>space elevator
Making a pulley system that's the size of the earth's diameter?
Now that's more like it

[Anomynous No.1662757]

>>1662746
Current, yes, but a price tag in the 100 billion dollar range to lose the first stage of a launch vehicle is not cost efficient unless you're launching a thousand payloads a year

[Anonymous No.1662762]

I don't get how this elevator should work? What would accelerate the elevator upwards?

[Anonymous No.1662767]

>>1662762

Oh, me again, the weight? That thing would need to be huge wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.1662768]

>>1662762
lol wut

[Anonymous No.1662772]

>>1662687
yeah well Japanese people are not exactly practical when it comes to science fiction
I mean when was the last time you saw a giant mech?

[Anonymous No.1662779]

>>1662772

Point taken. But I believe the jury is still on it.

I also agree with the naysayers that nanotubes are not really the solution to the tensile strength problem.

[Anonymous No.1662780]

>>1662757
>implying a space elevator is even near practical or efficient

I could see once space colonies existed (inb4 gundam) that a mass driver system would be of more practical use. A space elevator would be nice, but there are just too many variables that would have to be accounted for, and lots and lots of points of failure. It would be an engineering disaster to the likes of apollo 1 in a sense of traveling to space.

[Anomynous No.1662790]

>>1662780
Yes, yes that is what I am implying.
>too many points of failure
>engineering disaster
They said that about flight and rocketry too.

[Anonymous No.1662792]

I think it'd be better if they engineered some sort of better space balloon that can withstand the expansion of the upper atmosphere and fill it with hydrogen

[Anonymous No.1662794]

You guys are retarded. The amount of energy to power the elevator would be less to a shuttle launch but the amount of money to build it would overlap a generation of potential launches.

Not only that, but the only genuine advantage would be to use rocket sleds encased in tubes to pull wires made out of whatever the fuck works. This way the hydrazine made by the rockets could be isolated from the atmosphere and be used for sale or trade.

An elevator is just not possible with our current amount of space investments. I'd say focus on engineering planes that can switch to rocket boosters and go into space by detaching the jet engines or something.

[Anonymous No.1662800]

>>1662790
>you are on the ground with an apple, your friend is in the tree who wants said apple
>you have two options, throw the apple to him or make a pulley system
Rockets exist now because it is obviously the SIMPLEST way to get things to space, not because we are using it for some "feat of strength" achievement in one of your games. Just because something is possible doesnt mean it should be done.

The only reason anyone would want to make a space elevator is because they are compensating for something. Which is why the Japanese are wanting to build it so bad.

[Anonymous No.1662801]

>>1662792
That's been done. It doesn't get high enough due to material weight.

[Anonymous No.1662802]

>>1662790
goddamn it space elevators is a retarded idea. At least flight and rocketry made sense.

[Anonymous No.1662812]

This is the timecube of space exploration. I can't stop laughing.

[Anomynous No.1662813]

>>1662800
Okay, taking your analogy...
You now need to get a hundred apples to your friend in the tree. Are you going to throw them all up to him, when he fails to catch it one in ten times? And there's a guy there charging you ten dollars for every thrown apple and only a cent for every apple delivered by a pulley?

[Anonymous No.1662817]

>>1662813
>basically just described how the current space program works

How the fuck do you think they made the international space station? God, it is like talking to a mental retard with delusions of grandeur.

[Anonymous No.1662827]

I want to see more jet/rocket combination vehicles. An elevator would just become a lost cause. Takes too long to build AND it won't be complete due to budget cuts.

[Anomynous No.1662839]

>>1662817
>personal attacks
in a trolling mood today?

[Anonymous No.1662844]

>>1662839
>lacks knowledge of space travel
>thinks building an elevator to space is reasonable on any level
>can only repeat the mantra of it is possible so we must do it

[Anomynous No.1662847]

>thinks I lack knowledge of space travel
>assumptions
Trolling it is then.

[Anonymous No.1662849]

>>1662839
>implying personal attacks is a form of trolling

[Anonymous No.1662860]

>>1662847
>Hurt feelings

maybe you should go back to /b/

>>>/b/

[Anomynous No.1662869]

>>1662860
>butthurt that people dare talk about alternative lift methods on his precious /sci/

[Anonymous No.1662873]

>>1662869
>I saw it happen in my super awesome and realistic anime called gundam! So we must be able to make a space elevator too so we can have huge gundam battles.

[Anomynous No.1662875]

>>1662873
>gundam
funny, I do have that image

[Anonymous No.1662885]

>>1662875
Look, it's impossible for at least a century. Nobody has the fundings for it due to lack of indirect income.

[Anonymous No.1662902]

ITT people think a space elevator( 240,000) should go farther than the moon (Lowest orbit 225,000 miles roughly)

[Anomynous No.1662904]

>>1662885
and the device you're typing on was "impossible" a century ago. You're making proclamations far, far beyond your ability to accurately predict.

[Anonymous No.1662924]

>>1662904
Unless you can prove otherwise it's impossible on a financial scale at the very least. A hundred years still stands in the way. Besides what the shit will be capable of supporting that much weight? Not even titanium alloys would be able to and those are already expensive as hell.

[Anonymous No.1662928]

>>1662904
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon
Fuck you and your sluty mom.

This french author, who did no work in the field of the sciences made a very accurate sci-fi book about what it would take to go to the moon. Including making his spacecraft out of aluminum. Anyone can crunch the numbers for something. However, things are impractical to do from time to time. Only idiots say things are impossible. But it takes wisdom to say "hey, maybe this isnt a good alternative". A space elevator will be, now and forever, impractical compared to the alternatives.

[Anonymous No.1662943]

Why would we want to launch so much crap to space anyways?
I don't want to facilitate for the US to fill space with surveillance satellites

[Anonymous No.1662950]

>>1662902
>if we could get it 225,000 miles we might as well go as far as we fucking want

[Anonymous No.1662958]

Even if we could build a space elevator, maintenance and repair would be horrible within itself. It would be like the Mackinaw bridge where they have to paint it continuously to prevent it from rusting.

[Anonymous No.1662959]

>>1662943
Space exploration is becoming important because Van Allen belts have large quantities of anti matter which could open up countless projects that would prove so many theories that science would overlap religion and we would become rulers of the universe.

[Anonymous No.1662965]

>>1662885
Nobody has the funding because carbon nanotubes have yet to be produced on a commercially feasible scale. Claiming it will take 100 years for nanotube mass assembly is arbitrary and unfounded.

[Anonymous No.1662976]

>tallest building in the world is just over half a mile
>thinks it is practical to make a something 500,000 times longer

[Anonymous No.1662987]

>>1662965
Nanotubes can''t be fused together on an atomic scale while maintaining their allotrope. By the time that's possible space exploration will be dominated by rockets using fuel made by a more catalytic form of electrolysis.

[Anomynous No.1662993]

>>1662924
>Besides what the shit will be capable of supporting that much weight
Carbon nanotubes have a tensile strength in the range necessary. These will see development regardless of the potential space elevator applications because their tensile strength is a hundredfold better than anything else we have right now.

[Anonymous No.1662999]

>>1662987
That sounds very interesting. You got a link?

[Anonymous No.1663006]

>>1662993
Carbon nanotubes have only been grown by the millimeters. Synthetic diamond or carbon fiber are more possible than what you're suggesting.

[Anonymous No.1663008]

who give a shit

[Anonymous No.1663009]

>>1662999
A link of what? electrolysis? The advancment has only focused on the fact that platinum is currently good at breaking apart h20 to make h2 and o2 when electricity is introduced.

[Anomynous No.1663016]

>>1663006
Centimeters, actually.
>synthetic diamonds and carbon fiber
same shit, different configuration

[Anonymous No.1663027]

>>1663009
A link which substantiates a more catalytic electrolysis fuel cycle and its potential to render other modes of space transportation obsolete.

[Anonymous No.1663035]

>>1663016
>same shit

If you're not willing to realize that they're different with regards to kinetic energy distribution and tensity then you're not ready to discuss this topic.

[Anonymous No.1663047]

>>1663027
>>1663027
>>1663027
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

[Anomynous No.1663060]

>>1663035
>more assumptions that I'm not familiar with the differences
Let's all just assume you're the only one who has any knowledge of anything in this thread, you seem to be happy enough with this setup. Start writing smart guy, we're all counting on you.

[Anonymous No.1663072]

>>1663060
What setup? I'm just telling you that there's a difference between two different things. Stop taking it personally.

Anyway if an elevator starts getting built it would dip into many tax pools and you can expect many political leaders to not condone it. It will be seen as a leech.

[Anonymous No.1663099]

just railgun that shit onto orbit

[Anonymous No.1663106]

>>1663099
Enjoy being nothing but molten derp.

[Anonymous No.1663144]

Will it be guarded by Space Marines?
I'd hope so.
But seriously. what would happen if something flew into it?

[Anonymous No.1663147]

>>1663047
How would a more efficient way of storing solar energy using hydrogen/oxygen via electrolysis replace the need for a space elevator?

[Anonymous No.1663154]

>>1663144
http://gassend.net/spaceelevator/breaks/index.html

shit gets real

[Anonymous No.1663157]

>>1663147
I can only see a Space Elevator being an asset to any newer fuel sources. more efficient fuel sources lead to more exploratory posibilities. a Space Elevator leads to the ability for orbital construction of a larger ship than can be launched from a terrestrial site. To me, the elevator is really the first step in Deep-Space travel, as it would drastically reduce the costs of constructing something in space.

Anyone who thinks the elevator would be an exploration tool is dead wrong.

[Anonymous No.1663177]

>>1663157
The elevator would use just as much energy as a rocket. Except you dont have to build a 250,000 mile long dick that is made of the most expensive materials.

[Anonymous No.1663186]

>>1663157
Building something that's 200,000 miles long would NOT reduce costs
Even if its made of you're precious theoretical "nanofibers"
Besides, you'd need something to power the elevator

[Anonymous No.1663189]

An elevator that big would cost more than all of North America's economy.

[Anonymous No.1663202]

>>1663147
Also, these new catalysts would have to be 100 times more efficient than current electrolysis methods. Current space transportation costs using liquid hydrogen run around 11,000USD per pound. Space elevator costs have been projected optimistically at 100USD per pound to conservative estimates of 1000USD.

[Anonymous No.1663207]

A space escalator is much more feasible.

[Anonymous No.1663212]

>>1663202
>lacking costs in total weight required

[Anonymous No.1663213]

>>1663202
A space elevator would have a net cost that would overlap all the necessary trips that are planned.

[Anonymous No.1663225]

>>1663207
i like a space escalator because it can never break. if it did the sign would just say "space elevator temporarily space stairs. sorry for the convenience."

[Anonymous No.1663227]

200,000 - 250,000 miles is ten times the length they would build. Most proposals are between 20,000 and 30,000 miles. As for the power source, LiftPort Group is working on a beam propulsion system to power their climber. their estimates are that one round-trip for the climber would cost as much as it costs to power a house for a month. That's pretty cheap compared to a launch.

[Anonymous No.1663231]

>>1663213
I'm not even sure we have enough metal to stretch out for 200,000 in this earth
If they're planning on using nanotubes they better find a way to mass produce tons of that shit daily
Seriously though, this would not be economically feasible at all
A rail gun or nuclear canon seem way more efficient if you ask me

[Anonymous No.1663233]

>>1663207
i like a space escalator because it can never break. if it did the sign would just say "space escalator temporarily space stairs. sorry for the convenience."

[Anonymous No.1663237]

>>1663227
That's not possible. Beam propulsion can't work due to polarization and diffusion in the atmosphere. The energy would be lost.

[Anonymous No.1663243]

>>1663231
>nuclear canon

I LIKE YOUR LANGUAGE SIR

[Anonymous No.1663250]

>>1663231

>metal

[Anonymous No.1663251]

>>1663144
Why in the world has this not been made?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29

[Anonymous No.1663254]

>>1663227
That's the same thing I said. But LiftPort is saying they're close to making it work. Maybe it's not true beam propulsion. I don't know. Haven't read up on it.

[Anonymous No.1663255]

>>1663251
>1663144
didn't mean to quote that guy

[Anonymous No.1663259]

>>1663237
jump have power routed through the cable.

[Anonymous No.1663262]

>>1663251
>The first stage was to be powered by a single enormous 36 million kgf thrust engine burning RP-1 and liquid oxygen.

FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP

[Anonymous No.1663267]

>>1663259
That's not beam propulsion that's called electricity.

[Anonymous No.1663282]

>>1663251
>>1663251
OH GOD I AM AROUSED

[Anonymous No.1663286]

I read somewhere that it will be extremely difficult to build a space lift because the end station won't move with the same speed as earth's rotation. Something with the theory of relativity, If I remember correctly.

[Anonymous No.1663287]

>>1663267
no shit. beam propulsion is dumb way to transfer energy.

[Anonymous No.1663289]

Politician:Ah finally we've been constructing this space elevator for 50 years and its been worth trillions of dollars of our constituents hard earned money, but its finally been finished
Scientist:Hey guys, I've just found out we can manipulate gravitons. Now our former rocket payload can just levitate to its destination, also we may also be able to teleport it at a space station thanks to advances in quantum entanglement
politician:fuuuuuuuuuuu-!

[Anonymous No.1663298]

>>1663286
yeah einstein is always fucking up my dish network. cant watch my damn soaps cuz that relativity hogwash is messin with my geosynchronous satellite whats-its.

[Anonymous No.1663300]

>>1663289
DERP. Nonetheless you have a good idea of what would happen. Anyway, the sea dragon rocket is the best option.

[Anonymous No.1663304]

>>1663289
>gravitons
oh you

[Anonymous No.1663328]

>The Sea Dragon was a 1962 design study for a fully reusable two-stage sea-launched rocket. The project was led by Robert Truax while working at Aerojet, one of a number of designs he created that were to be launched by floating the rocket in the ocean. Although there was some interest at both NASA and Todd Shipyards, nothing ever came of the design as NASA's Future Projects Branch was shut down in the mid-60s. At 150 m long and 23 m in diameter, Sea Dragon would have been the largest rocket ever built.

Truax's basic idea was to produce a low-cost heavy launcher. To lower the cost of operation, the rocket itself was launched from the ocean, requiring little in the way of support systems. A large ballast tank system attached to the bottom of the first-stage engine bell was used to "hoist" the rocket vertical for launch. In this orientation the cargo at the top of the second stage was just above the waterline, making it easy to access. Truax had already experimented with this basic system in the Sea Bee[1][2] and Sea Horse[3][4] designs. To lower the cost of the rocket itself, he intended it to be built of inexpensive materials, specifically 8 mm steel sheeting. The rocket would be built at a sea-side shipbuilder and towed to sea for launch.

Sounds pretty gangster. I'm building this.

[Anonymous No.1663352]

JUST USE BOTTLE ROCKETS YOU FUCKING DILDOS.

[Boros, helmet !SNAKE2fzOg No.1663694]

>>1662817
>How the fuck do you think they made the international space station?
over an uncomfortably long period and VERY VERY expensively.

[Anonymous No.1663703]

>>1663694
get out worthless tripfag