Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Shadowalker
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 11/23/04
Posts: 2947
Loc: Carriere, MS, USA
|
|
This is really cool - and I hope Japan is serious about it. An elevator into space.
This has been explored in many science fiction novels, by Clarke, Bova and others. Japan believes it will be practical with some additional reserach into cabon nano fiber technology. If successful, the cost of access to space will be drastically reduced.
-------------------- Tom Nicolaides
http://www.first-light.org
|
jayscheuerle
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 2963
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
They didn't have much success with their Ladder to Heaven... (SouthPark) 
Seriously though, hasn't there been a contest for several parts of this idea (ribbon, vehicle) taking place out west for the past couple of years? - j
-------------------- 12" Green Goblin (trusser w/Protstar secondary and OWL refigured primary)• 6" f/5 Eero2 ball-scope • 6" f/5 Frankenscope • Garrett Optical 10x50 binos • Edmund 8" yoke-mounted red-tube reflector • Edmund 6" GEQ red-tube reflector (on loan to Dad)
Gone, but with lessons learned:
Skyquest XT8 • NexSTar 8i • Eeroscope 6" f/5 ball(sacrifice was not in vain) • Vixen ED80sf • Edmund red-tube 4.25" f/10 • Edmund Astroscan
Facts are stubborn things.
|
Jeremy Perez
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 08/12/04
Posts: 1660
Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
|
|
Tom, thanks for sharing that article!
Jay, I recall hearing about that too. Is this the one: Elevator 2010
There are a couple nagging questions I've wondered about a space elevator made this way:
How frequently would they have to move the base of the elevator to dodge satellites?
What would happen if the ribbon was accidentally severed at different points along its length?
KS Robinson's Red Mars space elevator was a monster, and so it did horrible things when it lost its counterweight and collapsed. With a lightweight nano-fiber ribbon however--if it got severed a few thousand miles up, would the first hundred miles or so gently flutter down as annoying oceanic litter, while the rest of it burns up from increasing acceleration as it descends?
--------------------
Orion SVP 6LT (6" f/8 Newt) || Orion XT8 (8" f/6 Newt) || 15x70 Oberwerk Binoculars
The Belt Of Venus || Astro-Sketch Gallery || Astro-Sketching Resources || Astro-Photo Gallery
Edited by Jeremy Perez (09/22/08 02:57 PM)
|
jayscheuerle
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 2963
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Theoretically, you wouldn't have to move the base, just detach it. The cable's not under tension (other than from it's weight). It would just float there, hanging from the sky.
Its COG is in geostationary orbit. Wherever you cut it, one part goes up and the other goes down as the COG would shift to either inside or outside the geostationary orbit. You could end up with the ribbon getting wound around the earth! - j
-------------------- 12" Green Goblin (trusser w/Protstar secondary and OWL refigured primary)• 6" f/5 Eero2 ball-scope • 6" f/5 Frankenscope • Garrett Optical 10x50 binos • Edmund 8" yoke-mounted red-tube reflector • Edmund 6" GEQ red-tube reflector (on loan to Dad)
Gone, but with lessons learned:
Skyquest XT8 • NexSTar 8i • Eeroscope 6" f/5 ball(sacrifice was not in vain) • Vixen ED80sf • Edmund red-tube 4.25" f/10 • Edmund Astroscan
Facts are stubborn things.
|
Pess
(Title)
   
Reged: 09/12/07
Posts: 1910
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
|
Kind of a silly article.
Almost like one announcing that America is going to build a generational ship for travel to the nearest star...sure it doesn't violate the laws of physics and is theoretically possible..but not probable within several decades.
There are several massive technical problems that need to be overcome.
1) Counterweight. You need to anchor the space end into a large mass such as an asteroid. It needs to be placed in geostationary orbit above earths equator. At the present time we are now just working out the technology to rendezvous a tiny craft with an asteroid. Technology does not yet exist to scoot one around our system with very precise delta V's and is a long ways off.
2) nanotubes- Yup, might be the only substance strong enough to form a cable. Yet we can only make tiny lengths at this point. We will probably need to make lengths that are continuous for many miles and the structure just may require lengths of nanotube that stretch from ground to orbit without interruption. Also there is the problem of cross linking the lengths of tubes together. Some way needs to distribute the stresses across the thickness of the cable to avoid snapping strands a few at a time.
3) How are the strands to be anchored into the earth and into the asteroid itself? Doesn't do any good to have an unbreakable cable that easily pulls out of the ground or asteroid. The whiplash from an asteroid separation would likely result in the massive cable winding around the Earth at the equator. Can you imagine the damage from a 35,700 km cable wrapping around the earth?
An interesting concept but still a pipe dream for a long, long time.
Pesse (How much per hour does a plumber charge to fix a pipe dream?) Mist
-------------------- 12" RCX400
WILLIAM OPTICS 110mm APO ZENITH STAR refractor
Custom Wyorock focuser for refractor
Douglas Schwan DC
Befuddled observer, bewildered student, bemused teacher.
Purveyor of cognitive dissonance.
Todays Quote: "Answers are worthless unless the proper question has been asked."
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
...sure it doesn't violate the laws of physics and is theoretically possible..but not probable within several decades.
There are several massive technical problems that need to be overcome.
Of course there are massive problems to overcome - otherwise someone would have built one already.
And the group*'s web site quotes a study saying the development work will take 25 years, so I think they're being reasonably realistic. The actual "news" is that this group is holding a conference to try to put together a concrete plan for development.
*The Japan Space Elevator Association - web site still only in Japanese
-------------------- -- Ken Kobayashi
Edited by Kobayashi (09/22/08 03:57 PM)
|
groz
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 03/14/07
Posts: 540
Loc: Duncan, BC
|
|
There's an outfit in seattle that's been mining the market of gullible investors on the space elevator concept for a few years. It sounds great in science fiction, and, in theory, the physics works, sort of, as long as you assume 'perfect conditions'. In practise, the technology advances need to make it workeable, never mind practical, suggest that the transporter out of star trek will come first.
The folks that want to hype the space elevator concept get all excited talking about nanotubes, but, they haven't done the math on the subject in general. In practise, nanotubes exist in some carefully controlled laboratory environments, but, those that exist, need a tensile strength improvement of at least an order of magnitude before they actually become strong enough to work for the space elevator concept. This ofc assumes the aerodynamic problems of these things getting whipped around by the winds at altitude can be overcome, most of the hypsters tend to disregard this as trivial. They also tend to discount the effects of the thing being hit by the occaisional meteorite blasting it's way thru the vicinity, or perish the thought, some of the junk we have lofted into orbit over the years.
Then comes the minor detail of powering the climbers. The hypsters love to draw the picture showing the cable hanging strait up and down, but, again, that's just because they never really looked at the physics involved. The climbers need to be accelerated as they climb, that puts a lateral force on the cable, which is NOT rigid. So, it's going to end up swinging back and forth a bit, and when you work out the forces, and the waves that'll end up in the cable from those forces, the conclusion is, the cable will be moving a LOT. But, somehow, from thousands of kilometers below, power is going to be beamed up to the climbers, and magically hit whatever reciever they are using, WITHOUT hitting the cable and damaging it.
The funny part of the whole space elevator concept is, once you figure out the mechanism of transferring that quantity of power from the ground, to the climbers, and doing it in such a manner that you can hit the moving target with the precision required, that's when you realize, why even bother with the cable?
The space elevator will NEVER happen, for that simple reason. Solve the problem of transferring power to the climbers, and you have solved the problem of power to winged vehicles, which dont need the cable. The cable is the larger of the technological hurdles, and the most fragile once deployed. it's also quite unnecessary. The fundamental key to the space elevator, after solving the problem of tensile strength on the cable, is solving the power transfer problem. Once the latter is solved, the former becomes irrelavent. The same power transfer solution used to power the climbers on the cable, can power vehicles that dont rely on the cable, and all the technological and engineering risk associated with it.
|
Pess
(Title)
   
Reged: 09/12/07
Posts: 1910
Loc: Toledo, Ohio
|
|
Excellent points groz.
I always thought that the space elevator was one of those pencils balanced on a tip things--theoretically possible but not likely ever to be practical.
Your point about harmonics is well taken. Myself, I envision craning my neck back to look at the cable rising up and seeing a million fold scenario of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge incident.
Energy density is the key to everything. Once we develop a small compact extremely dense energy source there will be no need for things like the the Space Elevator or large cumbersome rockets.
What's wrong with having a focused microwave beam pointing straight up like a search light? Vehicles could be placed in the beam and their engines powered by absorbing the microwave energy all the way to orbit. This technology is being actively tested in Hawaii right now as a microwave beam is flashed from one island to receivers on another.
Check comments under orbital power Plants
Pesse (Gives a slight twist to the phrase, 'Beam me up!) Mist
-------------------- 12" RCX400
WILLIAM OPTICS 110mm APO ZENITH STAR refractor
Custom Wyorock focuser for refractor
Douglas Schwan DC
Befuddled observer, bewildered student, bemused teacher.
Purveyor of cognitive dissonance.
Todays Quote: "Answers are worthless unless the proper question has been asked."
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
For power transfer, I thought the idea was to have conductive wire attached to or embedded in the cable. The biggest problem with that would be power loss due to the resistance of the wire itself over such long distances.
The advantage to the cable over some untethered method is that while you have the same total energy requirement, you don't have the power requirement - you can climb the cable slowly, requiring much less power (power is defined as energy per unit of time). If it takes a week to get to orbit, so what? Free flying objects, though, waste a lot of energy if they hover, so they have to ascend to reach orbit as quickly as possible (usually a matter of minutes, not hours or days).
I agree that the other issues (vibrations, tensile strength, etc.) are significant, and unlikely to be solved in the short term. Developing various materials with enough tensile strength is the biggest one, since vibration could be somewhat mitigated by increasing the tension on the line (by moving the anchor weight actually somewhat further out than geostationary orbit, so it is pulling up on the cable, not just orbiting), and by using a mix of materials with different resonant frequencies (so the cable as a whole does not resonate). But making the whole thing out of one material (i.e. carbon nanotubes) is probably a bad idea, since any single material cable is going to resonate at one intrinsic frequency.
Jarad
--------------------
|
Qkslvr
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/23/06
Posts: 1052
Loc: NE Ohio, US
|
|
I've read that depending on whether the number of carbon atoms going around the tube is odd or even, some nanotubes are super conducting. I figure at some point the cable will be designed as a linear motor. Then all you have to do is drop a car, and use the braking energy to lift another car.
I don't think this will happen in the next decade or 2, but after that?
As for the dense energy source, I suspect the public will never be allowed to have access to them, if indeed someone figures it out. There's to big a chance someone will make them go boom.
-------------------- Mike
N8/CG-5/40D
Coming sometime/Maybe FrankenRebel
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
Your point about harmonics is well taken. Myself, I envision craning my neck back to look at the cable rising up and seeing a million fold scenario of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge incident.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was destroyed by wind, which is unpredictable and chaotic. The forces experienced by a space elevator would be much simpler, just Newtonian physics. Gravitational forces from the Earth, Moon and Sun are easy to predict. The force from the elevator cars can be controlled by simply controlling the speed of the cars. I suspect it's also easy to control current through the nanotube cable which will push the elevator against the earth's magnetic field. And for redundancy you could always put ion thrusters along the cable.
Quote:
Energy density is the key to everything. Once we develop a small compact extremely dense energy source there will be no need for things like the the Space Elevator or large cumbersome rockets.
I'm not sure what you mean. An energy source doesn't necessarily translate to a propulsion method. And even if it did, it's far more efficient to climb up a cable than fly straight up. We have petroleum fuels that allow a helicopter to fly straight up a mountain, but it's much more efficient to put that fuel in a car and drive up the mountain.
Quote:
What's wrong with having a focused microwave beam pointing straight up like a search light? Vehicles could be placed in the beam and their engines powered by absorbing the microwave energy all the way to orbit.
OK, so the vehicle has power. The vehicle still needs to use that energy to eject propellant out of a nozzle in the back to get thrust. Which means the vehicle has to carry all the propellant needed to get to space. You don't gain much by carrying an inert propellant and using a microwave beam to accelerate/heat the propellant, vs. carrying a propellant that also happens to be an energy source.
-------------------- -- Ken Kobayashi
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
I think his idea about microwave energy would be that they would use the energy to power something like an ion engine that is very efficient in terms of fuel mass/thrust. Of course, current ion engines don't produce enough thrust to get off the ground, but we can lump that in with the technology needed to build the cable (i.e. neither exist yet, and require overcoming major engineering obstacles).
The cable would need to deal with wind (at least, the part that is in the atmosphere would). I presume that would be possible, but again quite an engineering feat.
If we could just get the recipe for scrith from Jerry Pournelle....
Jarad
--------------------
Edited by Jarad (09/23/08 09:43 AM)
|
jayscheuerle
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 2963
Loc: S. Philadelphia, PA
|
|
How would a space elevator not be affected by wind?
-------------------- 12" Green Goblin (trusser w/Protstar secondary and OWL refigured primary)• 6" f/5 Eero2 ball-scope • 6" f/5 Frankenscope • Garrett Optical 10x50 binos • Edmund 8" yoke-mounted red-tube reflector • Edmund 6" GEQ red-tube reflector (on loan to Dad)
Gone, but with lessons learned:
Skyquest XT8 • NexSTar 8i • Eeroscope 6" f/5 ball(sacrifice was not in vain) • Vixen ED80sf • Edmund red-tube 4.25" f/10 • Edmund Astroscan
Facts are stubborn things.
|
InkDark
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1461
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas. Don’t get me wrong, I would definitively take a ride on such an elevator, but it will never happen. Who is going to fund such a project? Why not use a balloon like Joseph Kittinger did in 1960, but without the parachute jump. Maybe something like a closed capsule lifted by a balloon.
Humans sometimes (often) underestimate the power of Nature.
-------------------- Jimmy
"Rarely Have So Many Understood So Little About So Much" - Palle Yourgrau
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
What do you mean by “Saving the Earth”? The Earth is not in danger! Don’t worry about the planet it will be here long after we are extinct...
Edited by InkDark (09/23/08 11:39 AM)
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
How would a space elevator not be affected by wind?
Well, the bottom portion would be affected, but over 99% of the length of the elevator would be outside the atmosphere.
-------------------- -- Ken Kobayashi
|
Qkslvr
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/23/06
Posts: 1052
Loc: NE Ohio, US
|
|
Quote:
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas. Don’t get me wrong, I would definitively take a ride on such an elevator, but it will never happen. Who is going to fund such a project? Why not use a balloon like Joseph Kittinger did in 1960, but without the parachute jump. Maybe something like a closed capsule lifted by a balloon.
Humans sometimes (often) underestimate the power of Nature.
IMO it's actually a brilliant idea, and imagine what the cost of cargo to orbit would cost vs rocket power, there's lots of money to be made by whoever funds it.
As for balloons, they can't take you into orbit.
-------------------- Mike
N8/CG-5/40D
Coming sometime/Maybe FrankenRebel
|
InkDark
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1461
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
How would a space elevator not be affected by wind?
Well, the bottom portion would be affected, but over 99% of the length of the elevator would be outside the atmosphere.
But the bottom is not the most important part...right?
-------------------- Jimmy
"Rarely Have So Many Understood So Little About So Much" - Palle Yourgrau
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
What do you mean by “Saving the Earth”? The Earth is not in danger! Don’t worry about the planet it will be here long after we are extinct...
|
InkDark
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1461
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is one of the most ridiculous ideas. Don’t get me wrong, I would definitively take a ride on such an elevator, but it will never happen. Who is going to fund such a project? Why not use a balloon like Joseph Kittinger did in 1960, but without the parachute jump. Maybe something like a closed capsule lifted by a balloon.
Humans sometimes (often) underestimate the power of Nature.
IMO it's actually a brilliant idea, and imagine what the cost of cargo to orbit would cost vs rocket power, there's lots of money to be made by whoever funds it.
As for balloons, they can't take you into orbit.
Well first of all, they would probably need to build two of them in case something goes wrong with one. After all there are two shuttles ready for every trip.
Second, balloons can't take you into orbit, but in my understanding, so can't the elevator.
-------------------- Jimmy
"Rarely Have So Many Understood So Little About So Much" - Palle Yourgrau
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
What do you mean by “Saving the Earth”? The Earth is not in danger! Don’t worry about the planet it will be here long after we are extinct...
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
Who is going to fund such a project?
I imagine there will be substantial investment from the commercial sector, as there was for the Channel Tunnel. There is huge potential for profit from the telecommunications industry for sure, and probably the energy industry (for solar power satellites). Tourism might be a big market too.
Quote:
Why not use a balloon like Joseph Kittinger did in 1960, but without the parachute jump. Maybe something like a closed capsule lifted by a balloon.
Balloons will only get you up 25 miles or so, and all that helium isn't cheap.
-------------------- -- Ken Kobayashi
|
Kobayashi
sage
Reged: 07/10/08
Posts: 291
|
|
Quote:
But the bottom is not the most important part...right?
Right. The tension on the cable is highest at geostationary orbit, and arbitrarily low at the bottom.
-------------------- -- Ken Kobayashi
|
|
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: llanitedave
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 487
|
|
|
|
|
|
|