• Patented 'space elevator' may put astronauts into orbit
    68 replies, posted
Is it even possible to patent structure ideas? [editline]18th August 2015[/editline] Anyway this is a radical new structure but its not a space elevator, nor do I think it can really launch rockets and receive spaceplanes
I wonder how much the sway of it would be.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48485831]That is way too short to be a space elevator. This is just a really tall regular building and has none of the benefits of an actual space elevator.[/QUOTE]The point of it is to be basically a really really tall launchpad.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48486424]I don't really know what you mean by sane, we went to the moon dude. Besides, it would just be a very long cable. [B]The only thing we need to do this is strong enough a material to do the cable out of, which we haven't found yet.[/B][/QUOTE] Actually that's not the only thing we need. We also need a bigass counterweight, which would probably have to be an asteroid or something.
[QUOTE=Adeptus;48485907]Do you use stairs regularly? because those are fairly prehistoric, and they work perfectly. The thing with space elevators is that they decrease the cost of launching a Kg of material into orbit so much that it would be actually affordable for almost everyone.[/QUOTE] Why yes, I do use stairs regularly. But I don't use stairs to [b]go 20km upwards into space[/b]. Sounds like it would end up almost as costly.
[QUOTE=booster;48488448]Actually that's not the only thing we need. We also need a bigass counterweight, which would probably have to be an asteroid or something.[/QUOTE] Well generally its usually a station at a large enough distance to balance the cable
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48485872]"the sandmonkey arab and his dogs the pakis and the negroes are already scheming how to blow it up, FACT!" Never change, internet comments.[/QUOTE] I love how the comments are either about the practicality of this, or pure Muslim bashing. But yea, this is more of a space stepping stool than a space elevator.
The energy required to get into low earth orbit, is much much greater then the energy required to leave the atmosphere, 20km doesn't really give you much of an advantage.
Ok let's ask the real questions here: 1. Who's spaceplane can take off within 100m at [b]0.05 atm[/b]? That's a rocket that lands later with wings. So it's pretty hefty. 2. How do you get this hefty spaceplane to the top in the first place?
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;48486283]Technically you wouldn't be in orbit if you jumped off a space elevator, you wouldn't be going fast enough.[/QUOTE] ... yes you would. If you jumped off a high enough point you'd be in orbit. If you jumped off at 35768 km you'd be in geostationary orbit. Lower than that and you may or may not be in orbit. At some level higher than that you'd actually be on an escape trajectory. While orbit has nothing to do with height the center of mass has to be in geostationary orbit. So if you're on something that is in orbit and you let go you're still in orbit since human legs don't have 2000m/s delta v.
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;48486868]Whatever happened to that one new method of throwing rockets up through the atmosphere, by using magnets? I remember some chinese student found out and patened this idea.[/QUOTE] If anything was shot out fast enough to reach LEO from ground level, it'd be flattened by the first wall of air it touches.
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;48490121]If anything was shot out fast enough to reach LEO from ground level, it'd be flattened by the first wall of air it touches.[/QUOTE] A hollow, evacuated, 20 km tall tube would aid in solving that problem, however...
[QUOTE=Mbbird;48488756]Ok let's ask the real questions here: 1. Who's spaceplane can take off within 100m at [b]0.05 atm[/b]? That's a rocket that lands later with wings. So it's pretty hefty. 2. How do you get this hefty spaceplane to the top in the first place?[/QUOTE] sssshhh you're ruining it. ya its basically an aircraft carrier but stupidly high up, and they also don't mention how impossible it would be to work up there, you'd be better off evacuating the air out of the tube and launching a rocket up it but even that would be horribly inefficient
[QUOTE=Sableye;48491028]sssshhh you're ruining it. ya its basically an aircraft carrier but stupidly high up, and they also don't mention how impossible it would be to work up there, you'd be better off evacuating the air out of the tube and launching a rocket up it but even that would be horribly inefficient[/QUOTE] Presumably you'd be able to get a small enough spaceplane up in a similar manner to the people (i.e. by hoisting it up there).
Isn't there something like this in Mega Man 10, X8, and Zero?
What about a giant zeppelin? Filled with helium, and a launch/landing pad at 20km? We've seen Felix Baumgartner's use of a giant helium baloon to reach 35km in height.
[QUOTE=Adeptus;48485907]Do you use stairs regularly? because those are fairly prehistoric, and they work perfectly. The thing with space elevators is that they decrease the cost of launching a Kg of material into orbit so much that it would be actually affordable for almost everyone.[/QUOTE] So why not just make space stairs?
[QUOTE=iAmaNewb;48492771]So why not just make a space stairs?[/QUOTE] Do you understand sarcasm? If you don't, then let me do some math. At a rate of 4 stair steps per metre, you'd need 80,000 stairsteps to reach 20km. To give you a sense of scale, the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, has "only" 2909 stair steps from the ground floor to the 160th floor. An elevator would take a small percentage of the volume used for a staircase of such a height. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs[/url] Look in there and read a little about stairs. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] And I didn't even talk about the feasibility of making such a structure stable. Or the volume of concrete/metal/whatever construction material you'd need to use to build such a design. So yeah. Let's not make a staircase.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48489919]... yes you would. If you jumped off a high enough point you'd be in orbit. If you jumped off at 35768 km you'd be in geostationary orbit. Lower than that and you may or may not be in orbit. At some level higher than that you'd actually be on an escape trajectory. While orbit has nothing to do with height the center of mass has to be in geostationary orbit. So if you're on something that is in orbit and you let go you're still in orbit since human legs don't have 2000m/s delta v.[/QUOTE] yeah at 35768 fucking km (seriously you're not teaching anything here, especially since it's already been brought up in this thread) that's not a space elevator that's just a large ass cable dangling from earth.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;48492869]yeah at 35768 fucking km (seriously you're not teaching anything here, especially since it's already been brought up in this thread) that's not a space elevator that's just a large ass cable dangling from earth.[/QUOTE] A large ass cable dangling from earth is the layman term for space elevator :3
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;48492869]yeah at 35768 fucking km (seriously you're not teaching anything here, especially since it's already been brought up in this thread) that's not a space elevator that's just [b]a large ass cable dangling from earth.[/b][/QUOTE] You just described a space elevator.
talking about ideas that aren't absurd here, im using the term space elevator as a way to say an elevator that reaches space instead of the proposed defined concept that is impossible to build (in this millennium) there's no reason to even refer to that since we are talking about things that can actually be pulled off.
An actual, sturdy elevator that reaches space would literally be impossible to pull off so I don't know what you're on about.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;48493065]talking about ideas that aren't absurd here, im using the term space elevator as a way to say an elevator that reaches space instead of the proposed defined concept that is impossible to build (in this millennium) there's no reason to even refer to that since we are talking about things that can actually be pulled off.[/QUOTE] A space elevator is an established concept. This is using the term 'space elevator' to describe something much less useful. It's like putting down a single cinderblock at the base of a cliff and saying you've built a staircase. It's something, but not very useful, and it's a little misrepresentative to call it a 'staircase' when asking people to help fund it.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48493077]An actual, sturdy elevator that reaches space would literally be impossible to pull off so I don't know what you're on about.[/QUOTE] A cable that dangles around earth and eventually reaches orbit and at the same time contain vehicles that would bring you to the end would be pretty redundant let alone impossible. The best logical choice is a plan like the one in OP, pretty much an airport on top of a giant tower. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;48493098]A space elevator is an established concept. This is using the term 'space elevator' to describe something much less useful. It's like putting down a single cinderblock at the base of a cliff and saying you've built a staircase. It's something, but not very useful, and it's a little misrepresentative to call it a 'staircase' when asking people to help fund it.[/QUOTE] Welcome to fucking language buddy, jesus christ.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;48493113]A cable that dangles around earth and eventually reaches orbit and at the same time contain vehicles that would bring you to the end would be pretty redundant let alone impossible.[/QUOTE] Something tells me you're not an aerospace engineer. Space elevators are a widely known concept and theoretically possible. The only thing that prevents their construction in practice is a way to manufacture the necessary materials in sufficient quantity. [Quote]The best logical choice is a plan like the one in OP, pretty much an airport on top of a giant tower.[/QUOTE] That, however, is much less realistic. There's a reason we don't build kilometers-high structures everywhere we can, that's the square-cube law.
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;48490121]If anything was shot out fast enough to reach LEO from ground level, it'd be flattened by the first wall of air it touches.[/QUOTE] That's why you shoot a rocket out at a low speed. You would still be saving huge amounts of fuel because it wouldn't have to overcome its' own inertia. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] Any kind of catapult with a restricted speed/acceleration would be a big improvement over standard launches. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] Like the ones on aircraft carriers, only bigger, and pointing straight up.
[QUOTE=Adeptus;48492847]Do you understand sarcasm? If you don't, then let me do some math. At a rate of 4 stair steps per metre, you'd need 80,000 stairsteps to reach 20km. To give you a sense of scale, the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, has "only" 2909 stair steps from the ground floor to the 160th floor. An elevator would take a small percentage of the volume used for a staircase of such a height. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs[/url] Look in there and read a little about stairs. [editline]19th August 2015[/editline] [b]And I didn't even talk about the feasibility of making such a structure stable. Or the volume of concrete/metal/whatever construction material you'd need to use to build such a design.[/b] So yeah. Let's not make a staircase.[/QUOTE] The same can be applied to space elevators as well. It's immpractical and well as almost impossible. And let's not forget about the energy needed to pull something from the ground to a space station hundred and thousands of kilometers above.
-snip-
[QUOTE=iAmaNewb;48493553]The same can be applied to space elevators as well. It's immpractical and well as almost impossible. And let's not forget about the energy needed to pull something from the ground to a space station hundred and thousands of kilometers above.[/QUOTE] The energies vary on the mass of the object. And if the object is made up of 70% fuel, then 70% of that energy was wasted for the 30% which will stay in orbit. A space station hundreds of kilometers above is indeed complicated, almost impossible; with our CURRENT technologies. The science and manufacture of advanced materials has improved a lot on the last 30 years. And an elevator is not impractical. It's tottaly the opposite of current launching systems, fully reusable, clean, and most importantly PERMANENT. Besides, there is no need of building it on geostationary orbit. You can build it way closer and use a counterweight on the "tip".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.