Space elevators just feel way to impractical. So much resources to build just one, and in order to get said resources we might as well just put a larger budget into creating mining vessels and better launching systems. I feel with our current set of tech, a space elevator couldn't even be built for another hundred to five hundred years.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50094439]Space elevators just feel way to impractical. So much resources to build just one, and in order to get said resources we might as well just put a larger budget into creating mining vessels and better launching systems. I feel with our current set of tech, a space elevator couldn't even be built for another hundred to five hundred years.[/QUOTE]
Looking at the history of high strength fibers/polymers, Nylon was invented in the 30s, Kevlar the 70s, Carbon Nanotubes/Graphene early 00s/10s. Each one with atleast an order of magnitude more tensile strength than the last, I feel it'll become very possible to find/create a material to stand up to the demands of a space elevator tether by the end of the century, if not the next 20/30 years.
Of course this is one piece, but a very crucial piece, of the engineering puzzle.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50094439]Space elevators just feel way to impractical. So much resources to build just one, and in order to get said resources we might as well just put a larger budget into creating mining vessels and better launching systems. I feel with our current set of tech, a space elevator couldn't even be built for another hundred to five hundred years.[/QUOTE]
people used to say this about intercontinental commercial airplanes, yknow
"the amount of steel, oil, and concrete to build these things and the warehouses that store them are going to be a huge waste! you might as well just build more train lines!"
I still kinda wish we did go about that. Train lines would be ultimately more useful by a long shot. :v:
if the tether snapped would it launch the counterweight into space? scary. then would the remaining tether come down and fuck things up? scary. im scared
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50095768]if the tether snapped would it launch the counterweight into space? scary. then would the remaining tether come down and fuck things up? scary. im scared[/QUOTE]
Without the tension on the tether, I would theorize it'd only go into a higher orbit but nowhere near orbital escape velocity.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50095711]I still kinda wish we did go about that. Train lines would be ultimately more useful by a long shot. :v:[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but we'd still need intercontinental flights. Compared with slow, (safe but still more) dangerous boat travel, it's the best way we have for the time being and possibly forever.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50094753]Looking at the history of high strength fibers/polymers, Nylon was invented in the 30s, Kevlar the 70s, Carbon Nanotubes/Graphene early 00s/10s. Each one with atleast an order of magnitude more tensile strength than the last, I feel it'll become very possible to find/create a material to stand up to the demands of a space elevator tether by the end of the century, if not the next 20/30 years.
Of course this is one piece, but a very crucial piece, of the engineering puzzle.[/QUOTE]
One problem is that materials tend to act very differently in space and high-atmo conditions. There's no telling what the stress of the tether might do to the materials over an extended period of time, plus radiation tends to do funky things, even with considerable shielding (which would add to the cost). This is one of the reasons why they are conducting material testing in space, since even a lab can't perfectly replicate what exactly is going on in the stellar abyss.
Thank god I'm not an engineer, that would be a challenge for sure.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
It's definitely feasible, but don't count on it happening within the next 50 years. Century's end, definitely. We have to account for government buracracy, after all.
[QUOTE=SharpTeeth;50096748]One problem is that materials tend to act very differently in space and high-atmo conditions. There's no telling what the stress of the tether might do to the materials over an extended period of time, plus radiation tends to do funky things, even with considerable shielding (which would add to the cost). This is one of the reasons why they are conducting material testing in space, since even a lab can't perfectly replicate what exactly is going on in the stellar abyss.
Thank god I'm not an engineer, that would be a challenge for sure.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
It's definitely feasible, but don't count on it happening within the next 50 years. Century's end, definitely. We have to account for government buracracy, after all.[/QUOTE]
I can atleast attest to the radiation challenge, as an Electrical Engineering student with background in radiation damage on materials. [URL="http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/products-and-services/fabrics-fibers-and-nonwovens/fibers/documents/Kevlar_Technical_Guide.pdf"]Kevlar itself and many other aramids (Nomex, etc) have high radiation tolerance and little change on their mechanical properties regarding tensile strength/etc[/URL].
One goal is to have some sort of crosslinking in the polymer chains between individual polymers so that if one chain is damaged, it's easily held by neighboring chains whilst the bonds reform. Shielding may be a consideration, but its better suited to have a tether featuring various layers of different materials (See Grade-Z Shielding) with similar mechanical properties to better handle the radiation requirements.
sounds like something a terrorist would want to attack
but anything worthwhile will be attacked anyways so whatever
Considering the monetary investment required to build one in the first place, it would be 'cheap' relatively speaking to have some serious military protection, as well as large no fly zones.
Notice how we really haven't had any real terror attacks on nuclear power plants (speaking for the US here), despite them existing all over the place. Now imagine that but with thousands of times the budget.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;50097858]sounds like something a terrorist would want to attack
but anything worthwhile will be attacked anyways so whatever[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine the security near a space elevator would be so high and the amount of clearances you'd need to even get 200 metres near the thing would make it hard for a terrorist attack
but also i feel this could be a flight risk, there'd need to be a way for aeroplanes to detect this thing far away so pilots can devert their course around it
Maybe it's just me but the concept of a space elevator sounds incredibly fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50098122]I'd imagine the security near a space elevator would be so high and the amount of clearances you'd need to even get 200 metres near the thing would make it hard for a terrorist attack
but also i feel this could be a flight risk, there'd need to be a way for aeroplanes to detect this thing far away so pilots can devert their course around it[/QUOTE]
No fly zone around it.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50098122]I'd imagine the security near a space elevator would be so high and the amount of clearances you'd need to even get 200 metres near the thing would make it hard for a terrorist attack
but also i feel this could be a flight risk, there'd need to be a way for aeroplanes to detect this thing far away so pilots can devert their course around it[/QUOTE]
there will probably be anti-aircraft weapons keeping the skies clear within miles of it
One problem I have with this video is that it suggests building one on the moon... but the moon rotates so slowly that you could never build it there. The tension is provided by the rotation, and the moon is tidally locked to Earth.
Mars would work, it spins at almost the same speed as Earth and has a great deal less gravity.
[QUOTE=_Kent_;50098230]One problem I have with this video is that it suggests building one on the moon... but the moon rotates so slowly that you could never build it there. The tension is provided by the rotation, and the moon is tidally locked to Earth.
Mars would work, it spins at almost the same speed as Earth and has a great deal less gravity.[/QUOTE]
The moon is all we got though
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50098171]Maybe it's just me but the concept of a space elevator sounds incredibly fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
it's a stupidly brilliant concept
we need affordable ways to get stuff up there in the first place and elevator sounds like a decent enough idea
I remember reading about ideas for giant mountain based "coil guns" firing into giant space nets as a method of cheap material transport. space ideas are weird.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop"]Lofstrom loop[/URL] is still the coolest space launch device. Hands down. It's literally a super sized clothesline spinning so fast that the centrifugal force* from going around the earth catapults itself into low orbit, and you use the insane speed of it to slingshot shit into space. The best part? You can launch potentially dozens of multi-ton payloads every hour, continuously, day or night.
*Yes I know there's no such thing as centrifugal force. You should know what I mean.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50098622][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop"]Lofstrom loop[/URL] is still the coolest space launch device. Hands down. It's literally a super sized clothesline spinning so fast that the centrifugal force* from going around the earth catapults itself into low orbit, and you use the insane speed of it to slingshot shit into space. The best part? You can launch potentially dozens of multi-ton payloads every hour, continuously, day or night.
*[B]Yes I know there's no such thing as centrifugal force[/B]. You should know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
I feel obligated to post this again:
[IMG]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/centrifugal_force.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=ridinmybike;50098377]The moon is all we got though[/QUOTE]
Ok, but that still doesn't make a space elevator on the moon possible.
[editline]9th April 2016[/editline]
This could work on either the Earth or moon though:
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50098622][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop"]Lofstrom loop[/URL] is still the coolest space launch device. Hands down. It's literally a super sized clothesline spinning so fast that the centrifugal force* from going around the earth catapults itself into low orbit, and you use the insane speed of it to slingshot shit into space. The best part? You can launch potentially dozens of multi-ton payloads every hour, continuously, day or night.
*Yes I know there's no such thing as centrifugal force. You should know what I mean.[/QUOTE]
I still feel mass drivers are a more practical solution with our current level of technology.
It would take decades before our current technology would be able to make a space elevator.
Heck, I bet you guys don't even know about mass driver.
[QUOTE=KonorB;50102909]I still feel mass drivers are a more practical solution with our current level of technology.
It would take decades before our current technology would be able to make a space elevator.
Heck, I bet you guys don't even know about mass driver.[/QUOTE]
The trick would be launching payloads with just enough energy to get them mostly free of earth's gravity, without just being launched uncontrollably into space. And hell, "space nets" aren't even impractical depending on the accuracy of the mass driver/payload. Though we'd probably need a couple break-throughs in thruster technology to make them work well enough in orbit.
I think the biggest issue would be the susceptibility of whatever your launching to the forces your applying to them. You'd have a hell of a tough time getting people to survive being essentially shot out of a rail-gun, the advantage with rockets there is the relatively gradual increase in velocity being survivable, where as with a mass driver you'd get all your velocity at once, I can only imagine the horrors that would cause to an organic body.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50103148]The trick would be launching payloads with just enough energy to get them mostly free of earth's gravity, without just being launched uncontrollably into space. And hell, "space nets" aren't even impractical depending on the accuracy of the mass driver/payload. Though we'd probably need a couple break-throughs in thruster technology to make them work well enough in orbit.
I think the biggest issue would be the susceptibility of whatever your launching to the forces your applying to them. You'd have a hell of a tough time getting people to survive being essentially shot out of a rail-gun, the advantage with rockets there is the relatively gradual increase in velocity being survivable, where as with a mass driver you'd get all your velocity at once, I can only imagine the horrors that would cause to an organic body.[/QUOTE]
Hence mass drivers being more worthwhile for cargo transport, astronauts take only a small percentage of the total mass cost vs all the cargo/materials needed.
Hard Cargo, anything that can be easily damaged under force would become problematic, and you also wouldn't want to launch items susceptible to the mechanics of the launching system either.
IE: Anything relying on magnetic propulsion would probably require extremely good shielding or just risk being destroyed, especially electronics, if you were launching it via rail gun, depending on how it's setup.
They could probably rig it so that the magnetic force being applied would be far enough away from the payload that the magnetic propulsion wouldn't cause problems, but there'd still be the issue of payloads being put under extreme force/pressure. Even tough materials could be susceptible to warping.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
