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


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:45 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in news:8d639685-3483-4339-b00b-5fa224d07505
@googlegroups.com:

> The demands on the tether are less extreme.

No shit. That is what *I* said.


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:45 am   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in
news:cf6e1dc1-23ce-428e-9ab1-61d72adfe465_at_googlegroups.com:

Quote:
Neither of us is, but you have gone down the wrong rabbit-hole and
haven't noticed, which isn't clever.


Their system is for payloads of thousands of kilograms.

Mine is for 100 Lb parcels.

You seem to think I am following some previous dork's idea.


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:45 am   



On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 1:38:52 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in
news:cf6e1dc1-23ce-428e-9ab1-61d72adfe465_at_googlegroups.com:

Neither of us is, but you have gone down the wrong rabbit-hole and
haven't noticed, which isn't clever.


Their system is for payloads of thousands of kilograms.


Which might justify the sort of capital investment that would be required.

> Mine is for 100 Lb parcels.

Which wouldn't.

> You seem to think I am following some previous dork's idea.

You've made it perfectly clear that you'd struck out into previously uncharted territory. Why you were bothering is less obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jasen Betts
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:45 am   



On 2019-02-03, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Quote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in news:q363fo$62p$6
@gonzo.alcatraz:

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


Spins up? It is not a satellite, ya dope.


I've been saying it won't "fly" for ages, but I'm guessing you some
private definition of satellite.



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

Jasen Betts
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:45 am   



On 2019-02-03, Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
I apologize for not reading the entire thread, but a few interesting things
if not already mentioned:

1. Space elevator science fiction reading should start with Arthur C.
Clarke's "The Fountains of Paradise". He covers it pretty well (carbon
fiber, space junk, etc.), but doesn't really deal with all of the major
issues.

2. Since the upper "lobby" is in synchronous orbit, you can just push off
from that and still be in synchronous orbit. But you can't just get off at a
lower floor. You could be going far too slow, and would fall to earth.


you would be in an elliptical orbit, (like all falling objects), the
orbit may, or may not, intersect the ground depending mostly on what
floor you got off at.

Quote:
3. It has always seemed to me that the cable would also be resposible for
increasing the horizontal velocity of the elevator car as it goes from the
surface of the earth to synchronous orbit. And vice versa coming back down.
So the cable would bow out to the West on the way up, and to the East on the
way down. It's not clear how this would be compensated for.


yeah, timming the next load correctly could cancel some of that energy.

Quote:
4. Another place where an elevator would be useful would be on Mars. And
that has the advantage of not having material atmosphere to get in the way,
or very much space junk already in lower orbit. And of course it wouldn't be
nearly as long. However, there is one big piece of junk that would have to
be dealt with, and that is Phobos, which is in a sub-synchronous orbit. (On
your next trip to Mars, please note that Phobos rises in the West and sets in
the East.) One thought for dealing with Phobos is to induce a wave
oscillation in the cable, carefully timed so that the cable is out of the way
when Phobos passes underneath.


I think that's what Kim Stanley Robinson did in "Red Mars"

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

Jasen Betts
Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:45 am   



On 2019-02-03, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:
Quote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in news:q363fo$62p$6
@gonzo.alcatraz:

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


Spins up? It is not a satellite, ya dope.


I've been saying it won't "fly" for ages, but I'm guessing you have some
private definition of satellite.



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


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:45 pm   



On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:39:13 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
Another ripoff in the making.

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


A space elevator sitting on the equator might have been a good idea
before 4.10.1957, but after that Sputnik 1 or in fact any other low
orbit satellite with orbital inclination greater than 0 degrees would
sooner or later cut the tether. Such satellite will cross the equator
twice each orbit and hence risk hitting the tether.


Guest

Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:45 pm   



bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in
news:9ec9e82a-475e-42b9-bd42-328acb3986fb_at_googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Their system is for payloads of thousands of kilograms.

Which might justify the sort of capital investment that would be
required.


You do not get it. 10 100 Lb trips are easier than a single 1000 or
10000 Lb trip.

The idea is to get parcels to space without the overt booster energy
requisite.

10 or 100 easy trips IS EASIER than single heavy load events.


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:45 am   



Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in news:q38gvo$j7m$2
@gonzo.alcatraz:

Quote:
you would be in an elliptical orbit, (like all falling objects), the
orbit may, or may not, intersect the ground depending mostly on what
floor you got off at.


Floor?

This is stupid.

The device will be two stations. The source and the desitination.

There are no mid span stops ANYWHERE!


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:45 am   



On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 2:11:47 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:39:13 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

Another ripoff in the making.

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

A space elevator sitting on the equator might have been a good idea
before 4.10.1957, but after that Sputnik 1 or in fact any other low
orbit satellite with orbital inclination greater than 0 degrees would
sooner or later cut the tether. Such satellite will cross the equator
twice each orbit and hence risk hitting the tether.


Or risk getting vapourised by the tether-protection hardware. A space elevator would be a very expensive item, and would have very thorough protection.

Sputnik 1 weighed 83.6 kgm, and stayed in orbit for three months before dropping back into the atmosphere and burning up. Probably not a real threat.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:45 am   



On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 10:11:26 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
Jasen Betts <jasen_at_xnet.co.nz> wrote in news:q38gvo$j7m$2
@gonzo.alcatraz:

you would be in an elliptical orbit, (like all falling objects), the
orbit may, or may not, intersect the ground depending mostly on what
floor you got off at.


Floor?

This is stupid.

The device will be two stations. The source and the destination.

There are no mid span stops ANYWHERE!


Bean-stalk style space elevators let you step off anywhere, up to roughly twice the geostationary orbital height. Bola-style orbiting tethers are less flexible, but not that inflexible. DLUNU may have invented something that's not only too small to be all that useful, but also too inflexible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:45 am   



On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 9:41:33 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Quote:
bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote in
news:9ec9e82a-475e-42b9-bd42-328acb3986fb_at_googlegroups.com:


Their system is for payloads of thousands of kilograms.

Which might justify the sort of capital investment that would be
required.


You do not get it. 10 100 Lb trips are easier than a single 1000 or
10000 Lb trip.

The idea is to get parcels to space without the overt booster energy
requisite.

10 or 100 easy trips IS EASIER than single heavy load events.


But 100 pound packages are too small to be all that useful - enlarging the ISS so that it has apace for an assembly shop don't seem to be a currently feasible option.

Cubestats are even smaller (2.9 pounds per 10cm cubical element)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat

and we've launched about 1000 so far, at a typical launch cost of $100,000 per device. Making the launch cost cheaper isn't going to enlarge the market enough to generate a flood of capital.

One of the local IEEE members did the K-band antenna for the Audacy Zero three-unit cubesat, so it's going to go into the NSW IEEE newsletter next month (which I happen to edit).

https://audacy.space/audacy-zero/

but it doesn't strike me that your scheme is going to address that market.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jasen Betts
Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:45 am   



On 2019-02-04, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org <DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno_at_decadence.org> wrote:

> This is stupid.

You are are acting that way, but here's hint, next time read the context.


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


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:45 am   



On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:31:03 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Quote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 2:11:47 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:39:13 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

Another ripoff in the making.

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

A space elevator sitting on the equator might have been a good idea
before 4.10.1957, but after that Sputnik 1 or in fact any other low
orbit satellite with orbital inclination greater than 0 degrees would
sooner or later cut the tether. Such satellite will cross the equator
twice each orbit and hence risk hitting the tether.

Or risk getting vapourised by the tether-protection hardware. A space elevator would be a very expensive item, and would have very thorough protection.


The kinetic energy of Sputnik 1 was about half kiloton, Sputnik 2 & 3
several kilotons. Don't forget that the empty core segment of the R7
missile were initially about the same orbit as the satellite
itself.but the empty booster decayed faster.

>Sputnik 1 weighed 83.6 kgm, and stayed in orbit for three months before dropping back into the atmosphere and burning up. Probably not a real threat.

Sputnik 1 complete 1440 orbits or 2880 equatorial crossings. In
principle a satellite orbit plane is locked relative to the stars, not
relative to Earth. Now that the Earth orbits the sun the plane
relative to Earth shifts 360 degrees un 365 days or about 1 degree
(110 km) a day. With 16 orbits/day for Sputnik 1 the orbital pattern
would shift 7 km/orbit in addition to 24 degrees/orbit due Earth
rotation around the axis.

So even this short satellite lifetime, the satellite wound have passed
just a few kilometers from the tether.

With thousands of orbiting satellites and other space debris, the
distance would be much shorter and the likelihood of a crash would be
much larger.


Guest

Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:45 am   



On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 18:31:03 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 2:11:47 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:39:13 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

Another ripoff in the making.

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

A space elevator sitting on the equator might have been a good idea
before 4.10.1957, but after that Sputnik 1 or in fact any other low
orbit satellite with orbital inclination greater than 0 degrees would
sooner or later cut the tether. Such satellite will cross the equator
twice each orbit and hence risk hitting the tether.

Or risk getting vapourised by the tether-protection hardware. A space elevator would be a very expensive item, and would have very thorough protection.

The kinetic energy of Sputnik 1 was about half kiloton, Sputnik 2 & 3
several kilotons. Don't forget that the empty core segment of the R7
missile were initially about the same orbit as the satellite
itself.but the empty booster decayed faster.

Sputnik 1 weighed 83.6 kgm, and stayed in orbit for three months before dropping back into the atmosphere and burning up. Probably not a real threat.

Sputnik 1 complete 1440 orbits or 2880 equatorial crossings. In
principle a satellite orbit plane is locked relative to the stars, not
relative to Earth. Now that the Earth orbits the sun the plane
relative to Earth shifts 360 degrees un 365 days or about 1 degree
(110 km) a day. With 16 orbits/day for Sputnik 1 the orbital pattern
would shift 7 km/orbit in addition to 24 degrees/orbit due Earth
rotation around the axis.

So even this short satellite lifetime, the satellite wound have passed
just a few kilometers from the tether.

With thousands of orbiting satellites and other space debris, the
distance would be much shorter and the likelihood of a crash would be
much larger.


And the precautions against anything that looked might it get close enough to do any damage would be correspondingly more aggressive.

Anybody who spends what it would cost to set up a beanstalk space elevator would spend a bit more making sure that some space junk didn't devalue their asset before it had earned enough to it's cover the capital cost.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

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