EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Space Elevator Not Gonna Happen

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Space Elevator Not Gonna Happen

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in news:eec6f368-2346-46ae-8746-bf8354e19ea6
@googlegroups.com:

Quote:
Gyroscopic forces don't come into it.



They do if the entire platform is built around a giant gyroscope.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in news:eec6f368-2346-46ae-8746-bf8354e19ea6
@googlegroups.com:

Quote:
Not a feature of any space elevator I've heard about.


Ever work with or study a gyroscope and its mechanical effects in
physics class?


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:45 pm   



On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 9:39:18 AM UTC+13, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Another ripoff in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg


Even if you could get strong enough material, problems with structural resonances would be immense. You would end up with a standing wave from here to space


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:45 am   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 6:00:22 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:
Quote:
On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
Another ripoff in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg


What about the hundreds or even thousands of lower orbit satellites
(including the GPS ones)? One hit and either one or both is destroyed.


You don't think that can be avoided? How do they keep sats from running into each other any other time?


Rick C.

--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

John S
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:45 am   



On 1/31/2019 2:39 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Another ripoff in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg


What about the hundreds or even thousands of lower orbit satellites
(including the GPS ones)? One hit and either one or both is destroyed.


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:45 am   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:09:34 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in news:eec6f368-2346-46ae-8746-bf8354e19ea6
@googlegroups.com:

Gyroscopic forces don't come into it.

They do if the entire platform is built around a giant gyroscope.


And magical forces might come into it if the entire platform was built around a giant unicorn.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:45 am   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 3:08:47 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in news:eec6f368-2346-46ae-8746-bf8354e19ea6
@googlegroups.com:

Not a feature of any space elevator I've heard about.


Ever work with or study a gyroscope and its mechanical effects in
physics class?


Of course I did. What has that go to do with space elevators?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:45 am   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 6:20:08 AM UTC+11, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 9:39:18 AM UTC+13, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
Another ripoff in the making.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAXGUQ_ewcg

Even if you could get strong enough material, problems with structural resonances would be immense. You would end up with a standing wave from here to space


There might be problems with vibrational modes, but they wouldn't be immense.

The obvious analogy is to the CO2 molecule, which has two stretching modes - symmetrical and asymmetrical - and two bending modes (in the x- and y-planes respectively).

The stretching modes would be excited by solar tides and lunar tides, and would presumably be actively damped by moveable counter-weights (crawling up and down the cable) about half-way down to earth and halfway out to the space end of the structure.

The bending modes would be harder to deal with. A large current loop in the equatorial plane about half way down to earth could deal with bending modes in one plane, but not the plane most likely to be active. Ion thrusters at the half way stations would probably be the preferred solution.

The bit of the cable in the atmosphere would damp the bending modes a little, but very little.

Torsional modes of oscillation are obviously possible, but there's no obvious way of exciting them, and a lossy coupling between a mass wrapped around the cable at the geostationary orbital height would probably provide enough passive damping.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 am   



On 2019-02-02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:01:25 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in
news:q32bk4$s2o$4_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

Most designs seem to have a stationary "beanstalk" this does away
with the need to expend fuel at the top.

Have you run the numbers? can your design lift enough fuel to
maintain itself?


We can barely build free standing radio towers down here at the
sub kilometer level. And those have guy wires on them.

So no stalk. It would weigh far too much anyway.

It needs to be temporal.

so far no confvincing argument

It is like fishing a wall.

uh, you mean for installing cables inside an finished wall?
I've never seen that done using skyhooks.

In this case, however, two lines get
dropped. The hoist tether for the payload attachment and the guide
strand it will ride on during the hoist event. The guide strand
gets anchored to Earth. During the hoist, once the hoist escapes
atmospheric influence, the Earth guide strand attachment can be
released and retrieved back to the platform.

What the fuck? by the illogic above the guide strand "would
weigh far too much anyway."

At some point, the rising payload and tether will continue rising
even after the winch has stopped pulling. So there will have to be
a capture device at the platform.

Tidal forces will continue to stretch the system, it's also going to gain
lots of angular velocity by conservation of momentum. it's going to
be a serious hazard to other satellites.

Ask yourself... your weight on Mt. Everest and your weight
standing on a chunk of ice in the Arctic Sea?

this argument is given as evidence of what?

Ask yourself how does this thing stay in orbit, (and in what orbit)

I think it is funny that you think no one has worked out the orbital
mechanics yet. I would have expected this to be the very first thing
done.

Your design is like nothing I've hard of before. maybe there's a reason
for that. I can think of several.

"My" design??? Care to actually say something rather than just being vague?


moving/extensible tether

Quote:
If you are so convinced the orbital mechanics won't work, why not
prove it or find someone who has already proven it. Do you think no
one has looked at it?

yes, I think noone who has looked has found it useful.

More vague nothing.

I recall watching a show about a company (or two) that worked on the
idea. Yeah, the material science isn't there yet, but they did all
the preliminary work and seemed to show that it was feasible if the
carbon nanotube thing could be made to work. By "feasible" they
mean there are no glaring defects in the science. Sure, there is a
lot more work to be done, but nothing that would be a clear road block.

That whip sweeping through the clarke belt seems like a deal breaker
to me

More nothing. Care to elucidate?


I explained that a few posts back, caused by conservation of angular
momentum as you reel the tether in the system starts to spin faster -
(it's already spinning once per sidereal day) when it gets much shorter
it spins much faster.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 am   



On 2019-02-02, Mike <ham789_at_netscape.net> wrote:
Quote:
On 2/1/2019 8:18 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org wrote:
David Brown <david.brown_at_hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:q31kva$d59$1_at_dont-email.me:

What you are describing is not a space elevator. It sounds more
like a "Space Chinook".

The "space elevator" is the same strand as mine but with a fixed Earth
bottom location. There is still the single strand and no "elevator" or
building. It is just like my design... a simple dumbwaiter. In that
design, the "winch end" (space platform) spools in and out as the wind
and other factors vary the line tension.

In my design, the line gets payed out when it is to be used. That
keeps the line in the best condition (read known). It gets payed out
toward Earth and captured in the atmosphere just like our spy sat film
payloads were except by drone instead of cargo plane. That then gets
attached and the delivery payload can be hoisted.

The system requires two lines. One, smaller (thinner), hard attached
line to guide the hoist line.

If you're gonna do that, just put a pulley at the top and drive the loop
from the ground.


Not going to work. there's nothing strong enough to make a uniform loop
from. the existing plans use a tapered tether.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:42 am   



On 2019-02-02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:01:25 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in
news:q32bk4$s2o$4_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

Most designs seem to have a stationary "beanstalk" this does away
with the need to expend fuel at the top.

Have you run the numbers? can your design lift enough fuel to
maintain itself?


We can barely build free standing radio towers down here at the
sub kilometer level. And those have guy wires on them.

So no stalk. It would weigh far too much anyway.

It needs to be temporal.

so far no confvincing argument

It is like fishing a wall.

uh, you mean for installing cables inside an finished wall?
I've never seen that done using skyhooks.

In this case, however, two lines get
dropped. The hoist tether for the payload attachment and the guide
strand it will ride on during the hoist event. The guide strand
gets anchored to Earth. During the hoist, once the hoist escapes
atmospheric influence, the Earth guide strand attachment can be
released and retrieved back to the platform.

What the fuck? by the illogic above the guide strand "would
weigh far too much anyway."

At some point, the rising payload and tether will continue rising
even after the winch has stopped pulling. So there will have to be
a capture device at the platform.

Tidal forces will continue to stretch the system, it's also going to gain
lots of angular velocity by conservation of momentum. it's going to
be a serious hazard to other satellites.

Ask yourself... your weight on Mt. Everest and your weight
standing on a chunk of ice in the Arctic Sea?

this argument is given as evidence of what?

Ask yourself how does this thing stay in orbit, (and in what orbit)

I think it is funny that you think no one has worked out the orbital
mechanics yet. I would have expected this to be the very first thing
done.

Your design is like nothing I've hard of before. maybe there's a reason
for that. I can think of several.

"My" design??? Care to actually say something rather than just being vague?


Sorry, DLU#1's design: moving/extensible tether

Quote:
If you are so convinced the orbital mechanics won't work, why not
prove it or find someone who has already proven it. Do you think no
one has looked at it?

yes, I think noone who has looked has found it useful.

More vague nothing.

I recall watching a show about a company (or two) that worked on the
idea. Yeah, the material science isn't there yet, but they did all
the preliminary work and seemed to show that it was feasible if the
carbon nanotube thing could be made to work. By "feasible" they
mean there are no glaring defects in the science. Sure, there is a
lot more work to be done, but nothing that would be a clear road block.

That whip sweeping through the clarke belt seems like a deal breaker
to me

More nothing. Care to elucidate?


I explained that a few posts back, caused by conservation of angular
momentum as you reel the tether in the system starts to spin faster -
(it's already spinning once per sidereal day) when it gets much shorter
it spins much faster.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:45 am   



On 2019-02-02, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Quote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in news:q32jmd$7t1$4
@gonzo.alcatraz:

What the fuck? by the illogic above the guide strand "would
weigh far too much anyway."

illogic?


yeah, those were your exact words when you dismissed a permanent tether.

Quote:
Hazard to other satellites? You mean the lower orbit devices roaming
the space between the platform and Earth?


No, Clarke belt. when this thing spins up. There's a lot of angular
momentum there

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:45 am   



On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:31:22 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
Quote:
On 2019-02-02, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 10:01:25 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:31:34 PM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-02-01, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in
news:q32bk4$s2o$4_at_gonzo.alcatraz:

Most designs seem to have a stationary "beanstalk" this does away
with the need to expend fuel at the top.

Have you run the numbers? can your design lift enough fuel to
maintain itself?


We can barely build free standing radio towers down here at the
sub kilometer level. And those have guy wires on them.

So no stalk. It would weigh far too much anyway.

It needs to be temporal.

so far no confvincing argument

It is like fishing a wall.

uh, you mean for installing cables inside an finished wall?
I've never seen that done using skyhooks.

In this case, however, two lines get
dropped. The hoist tether for the payload attachment and the guide
strand it will ride on during the hoist event. The guide strand
gets anchored to Earth. During the hoist, once the hoist escapes
atmospheric influence, the Earth guide strand attachment can be
released and retrieved back to the platform.

What the fuck? by the illogic above the guide strand "would
weigh far too much anyway."

At some point, the rising payload and tether will continue rising
even after the winch has stopped pulling. So there will have to be
a capture device at the platform.

Tidal forces will continue to stretch the system, it's also going to gain
lots of angular velocity by conservation of momentum. it's going to
be a serious hazard to other satellites.

Ask yourself... your weight on Mt. Everest and your weight
standing on a chunk of ice in the Arctic Sea?

this argument is given as evidence of what?

Ask yourself how does this thing stay in orbit, (and in what orbit)

I think it is funny that you think no one has worked out the orbital
mechanics yet. I would have expected this to be the very first thing
done.

Your design is like nothing I've hard of before. maybe there's a reason
for that. I can think of several.

"My" design??? Care to actually say something rather than just being vague?

moving/extensible tether

If you are so convinced the orbital mechanics won't work, why not
prove it or find someone who has already proven it. Do you think no
one has looked at it?

yes, I think noone who has looked has found it useful.

More vague nothing.

I recall watching a show about a company (or two) that worked on the
idea. Yeah, the material science isn't there yet, but they did all
the preliminary work and seemed to show that it was feasible if the
carbon nanotube thing could be made to work. By "feasible" they
mean there are no glaring defects in the science. Sure, there is a
lot more work to be done, but nothing that would be a clear road block.

That whip sweeping through the clarke belt seems like a deal breaker
to me

More nothing. Care to elucidate?

I explained that a few posts back, caused by conservation of angular
momentum as you reel the tether in the system starts to spin faster -
(it's already spinning once per sidereal day) when it gets much shorter
it spins much faster.


Why would you reel the cable in??? Once it is in place it would be left in place.


Rick C.

-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Mike
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:45 am   



On 2/2/2019 10:26 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
Quote:
On 2019-02-02, Mike <ham789_at_netscape.net> wrote:


The system requires two lines. One, smaller (thinner), hard attached
line to guide the hoist line.

If you're gonna do that, just put a pulley at the top and drive the loop
from the ground.

Not going to work. there's nothing strong enough to make a uniform loop
from. the existing plans use a tapered tether.

There's nothing strong enough to make a single tether either.


It's all a fantasy anyway. Why not fantasize about something that would
solve a lot of the many problems with this device. Let's thread it
and corkscrew stuff into space.

I haven't seen any estimates of how much money would be required to
research/develop/manufacture/install this device. And how much energy
would be
consumed in the process. Maybe we'd save enough money on rocket fuel
to pay it all back...someday, maybe...

The more I think about it, the more questions I have.
What keeps cracks from propagating as this thing whips
around in the atmosphere? I can't imagine making a crack-free
cable 20 thousand miles long. And how do you splice shorter
sections together?

Jasen Betts
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:42 am   



On 2019-02-03, gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com <gnuarm.deletethisbit_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 1:31:22 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:

I explained that a few posts back, caused by conservation of angular
momentum as you reel the tether in the system starts to spin faster -
(it's already spinning once per sidereal day) when it gets much shorter
it spins much faster.

Why would you reel the cable in??? Once it is in place it would be left in place.


I wouldn't it's DLU#1's plan.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Space Elevator Not Gonna Happen

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map