The thread for space cadets!
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Wait, a quoted # sign shows up as an unequal sign? Lemme check:
Nope, you misquoted.
No I didn't! I didn't change anything:
#
#
test said:
See?
(Must have been the Universe intervening directly to reveal the truth
)
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Anyway, guys. I've been thinking about this space elevator thingy and the nanotubes necessary. (Well, sort of.)
Before constructing a 20,000 km very thin tower, what sort of other buildings would be possible?
A road bridge over the atlantic? No problem, I'd have thought. Though I can't really see the point.
A 50km high dome over Europe? Which wouldn't keep the rain out, because it would have it's own climate.
Erm.
All sorts of swanky stuff.
Because to actually manufacture nano-tubes in sufficient quantity and cheaply enough, it would have to become an almost ubiquitous everyday material, wouldn't it?
A plane made of nano-tubes or graphine would, or could, be transparent, yes?
Before constructing a 20,000 km very thin tower, what sort of other buildings would be possible?
A road bridge over the atlantic? No problem, I'd have thought. Though I can't really see the point.
A 50km high dome over Europe? Which wouldn't keep the rain out, because it would have it's own climate.
Erm.
All sorts of swanky stuff.
Because to actually manufacture nano-tubes in sufficient quantity and cheaply enough, it would have to become an almost ubiquitous everyday material, wouldn't it?
A plane made of nano-tubes or graphine would, or could, be transparent, yes?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Why is everybody saying 20,000 km? Shouldn't it be over 36,000 km, which is roughly the height of the Geostationary Orbit (GEO)?
An undersea tunnel for hi-speed trains, though...
New materials will certainly lead to interesting applications, but let's be realistic - it will have its drawbacks. See diamond - very hard, but also very fragile. That's actually a problem for the space elevator - the cable will get hit by orbital debris. We need a cable that can continuously be repaired, let's say by adding another layer of nanotubes.
---
Here's a question that bugs me though - how will it handle the traffic? I mean, when you have climbers going up, does it mean you can't send anything down at the same time? Or can there be 'switch stations' along the way to allow climbers to pass each other in both directions? Or do we use two cables, one for upward climbers, one for the downward ones?
Also, it would take some time - even if the climbers could move as fast as jet airliners, which they probably can't, at least not in the earlier models of space elevators, it would take one and a half days to reach geostationary orbit. With slower climbers, let's say maglev-fast ones, it would take about four days.
maybe because once you get far enough above the surface of Earth the gravity isn't a significant factor in the energy required to go the rest of the way?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
This is no doubt my mistake and laziness. I should have looked it up. But I couldn't be bothered and just plucked a likely looking figure out of thin air. So is that round about 20,000 miles? Pretty close. Dunno. Whatever the figure is. I'll go with 36k km in future then.
It is astonishingly complex.
LamaGT
Emperor
I'm guessing this elevator would be seen across all of Europe if built in Africa? Anyway, IMHO it would be too massive of a structure to be built, besides the fact that maintenance costs would be sky-high, it would be like maintaining a bridge almost as long as Earth's circumference
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
I am doing research for a white paper on potential construction of a/the space elevator. The link from Rice University is useful and I am using material from my local college but my material feels a little... lacking. Any suggestions for what I should look at?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I don't see why it would be seen. Visibility isn't usually that good is it? And you're talking about a very thin structure.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I would look up the NASA tether challenges (can't remember the official name) to get talking points or data from current experiments and developments in this field.
Probably not, it'll be so thin that it will be very hard to pick out more than a 100km out or so.
Research into this project could be the thing that makes nano-tubes a ubiquitous material.
I have no idea about the optical properties of these materials.
Edit:
20000 miles = 32186.88 kilometers
I doubt anyone more than 40km away could see it - think about how far you can see on a clear day - that's the radius of visibility.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Meteoroid atmospheric entry causes damage and injuries in Russia - BBC
-> Allegedly this was an object roughly the size of kitchen table (says CNN video here)
Asteroid 2012 DA14 set for record-breaking Earth pass - BBC
-> Coincidence? Or perhaps a few pieces of debris travelled a bit 'ahead'?
---
Russia Today has some videos of the fireball here.
And an amateur video with the bang:
Link to video.
-> Allegedly this was an object roughly the size of kitchen table (says CNN video here)
Asteroid 2012 DA14 set for record-breaking Earth pass - BBC
-> Coincidence? Or perhaps a few pieces of debris travelled a bit 'ahead'?
---
Russia Today has some videos of the fireball here.
And an amateur video with the bang:
Link to video.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Woah! scary. One realizes the huge energies involved only from the amount of light it produces. Like several suns.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Exactly. And this was a small rock. Imagine something a few dozen metres in diameter. No wonder the effects are often comparable with those of nuclear warheads even though nothing really big actually touches the ground.
I always thought these little ones literally explode, but they seem just to really quickly deposit their kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Well, it's a sort of 'linear explosion'.
I always thought these little ones literally explode, but they seem just to really quickly deposit their kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Well, it's a sort of 'linear explosion'.
Firstly, I recommend buying the books, because this gives actual financial support to those who're working very hard to make this thing real.
http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/
Of those, I read The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transportation System - by Bradley Edwards
I quite liked it.
yes, it's a coincidence. This meter was on an entirely different orbital path than the big one.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Thanks for the advice guys. I have already read Edwards book as part of my research, will take a look at some of the other suggestions you all gave me.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Similar threads
