/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4196555]

So how close are we to making a space elevator or other system which can reliably and cheaply deliver cargo to orbit? Humans optional.

[Anonymous No.4196556]

I really don't understand this theory, surely the speed the bottom is moving at will be much slower than the speed of the top has to be to keep it from breaking!?

[Anonymous No.4196561]

>>4196555
The one propeled by lasers?

[Anonymous No.4196562]

I thought I read something about carbon nanotubes needing to be 40x stronger, but that in the past few years carbon nanotubes have gotten 200x stronger (to reach the point where they now need to be 40x stronger). Don't remember the citation, I think I was clicking the wikipedia sources.

[Anonymous No.4196583]

Wouldn't the ground base outpace the space base and cause the whole thing to wrap around the earth if it doesn't break first?

[Anonymous No.4196590]

>>4196583

I think they need a counterweight, like an asteroid towed into orbit and going the right speed.

[Anonymous No.4196601]

>>4196556
The plan is for the counterweight-station to orbit the Earth a certain distance beyond the geostationary orbit, so that the center of mass for the whole structure(cable+station+elevators) is AT the geostationary orbit. This way the whole structure turns at the same rate as the Earth.

>>4196583
No, see above explanation.

>>4196562
There's a certain kind of carbon nanotube called Colossal Carbon Tube(CCT) which is stronger than the regular kind by a hefty margin.
'All' that's needed now is a method to produce them in bulk length instead of millimeter or centimeter lengths for the cable to be strong enough.

[Anonymous No.4196603]

>>4196601
And here's the fucking pic.

[Anonymous No.4196606]

>>4196603
where the fuck can we get the matter to produce that kind of architecture?
also the funding

[Anonymous No.4196626]

>>4196606
One example here:
http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/HighLift/chapter11.html

Other estimates have ranged from as little as five billion dollars to as high as 50 billion.

Unlike in the link, the best way to do it would be to capture a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid in orbit, process some of it's material into the elevator cable and to make the rest of the asteroid into the counterweight station as the cable is lowered to Earth.

[Anonymous No.4196639]

This is honestly the dumbest fucking idea. An elevator? Do you realize how fucking stupid and unrealistic it would be to build an elevator that goes into space? Good luck keeping that piece of shit from snapping in half. I'm dumbfounded that this idea is even humored. An elevator? Surely you aren't all that fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.4196658]

what's the average diameter for this elevator to support itself?
thickest and thinnest part?

[Anonymous No.4196676]

Isnt that from one of those books where theyre all in blimps? the make this counterweight and then use asteroid as the line, dont think its real

[Anonymous No.4196684]

> or other system which can reliably and cheaply deliver cargo to orbit

I get this feeling half the people in this thread stopped before that.

[Anonymous No.4196699]

>>4196676
The concept is sound if we can find out how to make colossal carbon tubes of arbitrary length.

>>4196684
No, people in /sci/ just mostly seem to fall into three categories:
>Fuck yeah, space elevator!
>Fuck yeah, rockets!
>Fuck yeah, apocalypse!

I myself like the idea of using currently available technologies to build launch loops, space guns and space fountains, all of which require refinements of currently existing technologies instead of relying on possibly unattainable ones.

[Anonymous No.4196715]

It won't be done for a long time. Too dangerous. If the cable breaks or get cut, it will fall back on earth causing massive damages.

But we can still dreams. Also, I hope people calling the concept dumb are trolling. It can work..

[Anonymous No.4196745]

>>4196715
>Not dangerous. If the cable breaks or gets cut, it will flutter back to earth causing a mess.
Luckily, to prevent such a mess, the plan calls for an automatic system which disconnects the tether from groundside if a catastrophic breakdown is about to occur due to tension. When cut from the Earth, the cable will just float above the groundstation, until the threat is fixed and the cable is again connected to the ground.

[Anonymous No.4196848]

>>4196699
>Bitches about unrealistic science
>Posts picture of a horrible mass driver platform thing sketch

[Anonymous No.4196858]

My personal preference would be to build a launch loop or two, then use those to work on an orbital ring.

[Anonymous No.4196866]

I want to see what Skylon ends up doing. It may not be planned to be all that much cheaper than the rockets we're currently using, but it will be interesting to see if it works, and might pave the way to even cheaper methods.

[Anonymous No.4196902]

>>4196866

Skylon should be awesome. The savings will be huge compared to shuttle and it can carry more people.

Space in the next few years should get interesting. The Chinese want to build a space station and we have a buttload of new technology and research ready to take us to Mars / asteroids / Moon

Space elevator is crazy and at least 50 years away before serious consideration

[John Titor No.4196909]

>>4196639
>HERP DERP look guys rockets really?using rockets to go space? This is the most unrealistic and dumb idea
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/

[Anonymous No.4196928]

why not build the device right exactly at the north pole so that we dont have to worry about bending cable

[Anonymous No.4196932]

>>4196866
This and laser propulsion for launch are likely to be our best way to orbit.

[Anonymous No.4196998]

>>4196848
0/10
too obvious

[Anonymous No.4197140]

>>4196998

Too obvious? Serious comment and point made.

[Anonymous No.4197146]

>>4197140
No.

[Anonymous No.4197168]

>>4196928
you can't put it anywhere but at the equator. the anchor satellite will need to be in geosynchronous orbit, and to be in geosynchronous orbit, you need to be directly above the equator.

[Anonymous No.4197196]

>>4196932
>Laser propulsion
Excuse me if this is obvious, I'm not a /sci/ regular.

[Anonymous No.4197279]

>>4197196
The bottom of the craft is a parabolic mirror.
You shoot laser pulses into this mirror.
In atmosphere, the mirror concentrates the laser pulses, heating up air in the focus, giving propulsion.
In space the same, except the spacecraft needs to drop something into the focus to be vaporized to give thrust.

Proof-of-concept here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA

The function of the pressurized air is to spin the test craft to get easy stabilization.

[Anonymous No.4197289]

>>4197279
That's... remarkably simple.
I suppose most good ideas are, however. Thanks for the info, bro.

[Anonymous No.4197320]

>>4197289
It is simple, but it also has some problems.
The simplest on is that at larger scales, the noise incredible.
More serious problems come from the atmosphere, with the beam losing power and cohesion over longer distance and from the thermal bloom which exacerbates the previous.

Also, the laser does take a lot of power, and for any kind of effective off-planet use, you will need a network of high-powered lasers everywhere in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.4197351]

>>4197279

Interesting idea but not suitable for scaling up.

They're worried about that tiny little laser damaging satellites, just imagine the size needed for a full payload

[Anonymous No.4197380]

I'm not sure if this is a troll post.

Let's say that it has an height of 500km.
do you realise what happens if it gets any little force on it, an asteroid that hit it or a lost object that hit it? Let's say that it is only a force of 1000N.
It would produce 500 000 000 Nm as a latteral force at the pillar on the ground. I would like to know what could retain that, and even if you could, you have to make it way stronger than this because objects will hit it faster and wind would blow stronger that the force that I suggested

[Anonymous No.4197519]

>>4197380
>never heard of space elevator
>looks at pic, doesn't read up on what a space elevator is
>even though there is ample information in the thread along with one link
>judging a book by it's cover
No, bad anon! Bad!

[Anonymous No.4197546]

>>4197519
I like it when you say things.

[Anonymous No.4197591]

>>4197546
In case you didn't notice, I don't appreciate when you go full retard about a topic you know exactly dick about.

[Anonymous No.4197646]

>>4197351
That tiny little laser is capable of temporarily blinding spy satellites, all you need to blind an optical milsat is 60 watts of laser.

As far as space elevator goes we need to be able to make defect free nanotubes very long.

[Anonymous No.4197664]

Couldn't we just build a really big skyscraper and put a normal elevator in it? Yeah it'll be heavier but we won't need expensive carbon nanotubes.

[Anonymous No.4197672]

>>4197664
Because that would require a crazy amount of material. It would be ultraexpensive.

[Anonymous No.4197692]

>>4197672
This, but also that the structure would be so heavy that it couldn't support itself. What's more, it would be so heavy that the Earth's crust couldn't support it, causing a slow depression, accompanied by earthquakes and volcanism in the later stages.

[Anonymous No.4197735]

>>4197591
I wasn't being sarcastic.
Full retard is you.

I'm not even the person you were talking to.

[Anonymous No.4197743]

>>4197692

I read vulcan-ism.

I'm now thinking about a disease that turns you into spock.

How possible would it be to breed vulcans into humanity?

[Anonymous No.4197753]

>>4196555
space elevator is retarded idea. better build alot of mag catapults with scramjet rockets and reliable power source, like fusion reactor.