I'm certainly no physicist...

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:03 am

I'm certainly no physicist...

indeed

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:05 am

Oslama and his crew would have a feild day with that thing if it were ever made

Also they would need to make it out of some carbon like stuff, very close to diamond, if i rememer correctly?
Where the fuck are you gonna find that much diamond like stuff?

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:08 am

Don Carlos wrote: Where the fuck are you gonna find that much diamond like stuff?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

Post by **losCHUNK** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:28 am

where was j00000.... when they built a ladder to heaven

Post by **Don Carlos** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:41 am

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
Don Carlos wrote: Where the fuck are you gonna find that much diamond like stuff?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

very cool, in a way!

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:15 pm

extremely cool. now there is a reason why the diamond business has no excuse not to be monopolized.

Post by **emoticon** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:45 pm

more pictures, less words

Post by **booker** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:12 am

dream big

Post by **Tsakali_** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:00 am

now how the hell do you get the "rope" from earth to the counter-weight(or the other way around)
any ideas? not to mention that it will prolly end up having to be build in sections

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:14 am

Tsakali_ wrote:now how the hell do you get the "rope" from earth to the counter-weight(or the other way around)
any ideas? not to mention that it will prolly end up having to be build in sections

fire a rocket into orbit, when its almost out of the stratosphere eject some sort of counter weight which will fall to earth, rocket reaches orbit object is still falling, towards earth

simple.

................^
................|

---- orbit point
................|
............... |
............... |
............. rocket -(ounter weight) (zero g)
................-- (stratosphere)
................-- (release point)
................|
................|

------- rope
................|
...............weight
................
................
................-- (Ground)

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:17 am

eighter that or just tie the rope to the rocket..... probably even more simple

Post by **Tsakali_** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:29 am

not gonna work the "rope " itself not to mention the counterweight will be too heavy for the rocket, and not to mention the effect of the atmospheric winds...I don't think it's that simple.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:27 am

Tsakali_ wrote:not gonna work the "rope " itself not to mention the counterweight will be too heavy for the rocket, and not to mention the effect of the atmospheric winds...I don't think it's that simple.

Traditional way

One early plan involved lifting the entire mass of the elevator into geosynchronous orbit, and simultaneously lowering one cable downwards towards the Earth's surface while another cable is deployed upwards directly away from the Earth's surface. Tidal forces (gravity and centrifugal force) would naturally pull the cables directly towards and directly away from the Earth and keeps the elevator balanced around geosynchronous orbit.

However, this approach requires lifting hundreds or even thousands of tons on conventional rockets. This would be very expensive.
[edit]

Brad Edwards' proposal

Bradley C. Edwards, Director of Research for the Institute for Scientific Research (ISR), based in Fairmont, West Virginia, is a leading authority on the space elevator concept. He proposes that a single hairlike 20 short ton (18 metric ton) 'seed' cable be deployed in the traditional way, giving a very lightweight elevator with very little lifting capacity.

Then, progressively heavier cables would be pulled up from the ground along it, repeatedly strengthening it until the elevator reaches the required mass and strength. This is much the same technique used to build suspension bridges.

Although 20 short tons for a seed cable may sound like a lot, it would actually be very lightweight — the proposed average mass is about 0.2 kilogram per kilometer. Conventional copper telephone wires running to consumer homes weigh about 4 kg/km.

Post by **Scourge** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:27 am

Wouldn't a counter-weight be rendered useless as there is no weight in space? Even with centrifugal force the tension of the two ends would be incredible.

Could anyone calculate the intensity of the 'gravity' that would result from the 'swinging' of the outside 'anchor'?

edit: Or would there be any since there is no weght?

Post by **YourGrandpa** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:37 am

All I know is, I'm not volunteering for the testing process.

Post by **Scourge** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:45 am

riddla wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9454786/

Ok, now they have to tackle the problems of weightlessness on the other end, freezing temps at higher altitudes, high winds at high altitudes, and probably numerous other little problems.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:46 am

scourge34 wrote:Wouldn't a counter-weight be rendered useless as there is no weight in space? Even with centrifugal force the tension of the two ends would be incredible.

Could anyone calculate the intensity of the 'gravity' that would result from the 'swinging' of the outside 'anchor'?

edit: Or would there be any since there is no weght?

Funnily, there is actually the least amount of tension at the two ends. If you read the wiki you'll see that a possible design has the base of the rope on earth as being less than 1mm thick. Tension is actually greatest in the middle, at the geosynchronous orbit. This is a point where the greater centripetal cancels out the effect of gravity towards earth, making an object located at this orbit 'float' in space. Objects below this orbit are attracted towards earth, while objects above this line have the opposite effect of being repelled from earth. A space elevator is an object that has exactly half its mass below geosynchronous orbit and the other half above. These two masses, located where they are, cancel out the repelling and attraction forces, making it 'float' above earth. Tension is strongest at the geosynchronous point, and if you read the wiki they talk about how a space elevator made of steel would have to be over 100 miles thick at that point. That's why this idea will never 'get off the ground' until we're able to use stronger materials like carbon nanotube.

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:40 am

The first step toward the mass production of nanotubes has been taken.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:00 am

mjrpes wrote:
Tsakali_ wrote:not gonna work the "rope " itself not to mention the counterweight will be too heavy for the rocket, and not to mention the effect of the atmospheric winds...I don't think it's that simple.
Traditional way

One early plan involved lifting the entire mass of the elevator into geosynchronous orbit, and simultaneously lowering one cable downwards towards the Earth's surface while another cable is deployed upwards directly away from the Earth's surface. Tidal forces (gravity and centrifugal force) would naturally pull the cables directly towards and directly away from the Earth and keeps the elevator balanced around geosynchronous orbit.

However, this approach requires lifting hundreds or even thousands of tons on conventional rockets. This would be very expensive.
[edit]

Brad Edwards' proposal

Bradley C. Edwards, Director of Research for the Institute for Scientific Research (ISR), based in Fairmont, West Virginia, is a leading authority on the space elevator concept. He proposes that a single hairlike 20 short ton (18 metric ton) 'seed' cable be deployed in the traditional way, giving a very lightweight elevator with very little lifting capacity.

Then, progressively heavier cables would be pulled up from the ground along it, repeatedly strengthening it until the elevator reaches the required mass and strength. This is much the same technique used to build suspension bridges.

Although 20 short tons for a seed cable may sound like a lot, it would actually be very lightweight ? the proposed average mass is about 0.2 kilogram per kilometer. Conventional copper telephone wires running to consumer homes weigh about 4 kg/km.

I knew I should read it but I couldn't be bothered :icon32:

edit:
oooo I got a shinny new icon :icon26:

Post by **Scourge** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:06 am

mjrpes wrote:
scourge34 wrote:Wouldn't a counter-weight be rendered useless as there is no weight in space? Even with centrifugal force the tension of the two ends would be incredible.

Could anyone calculate the intensity of the 'gravity' that would result from the 'swinging' of the outside 'anchor'?

edit: Or would there be any since there is no weght?
Funnily, there is actually the least amount of tension at the two ends. If you read the wiki you'll see that a possible design has the base of the rope on earth as being less than 1mm thick. Tension is actually greatest in the middle, at the geosynchronous orbit. This is a point where the greater centripetal cancels out the effect of gravity towards earth, making an object located at this orbit 'float' in space. Objects below this orbit are attracted towards earth, while objects above this line have the opposite effect of being repelled from earth. A space elevator is an object that has exactly half its mass below geosynchronous orbit and the other half above. These two masses, located where they are, cancel out the repelling and attraction forces, making it 'float' above earth. Tension is strongest at the geosynchronous point, and if you read the wiki they talk about how a space elevator made of steel would have to be over 100 miles thick at that point. That's why this idea will never 'get off the ground' until we're able to use stronger materials like carbon nanotube.

Yeah, in theory. In practical use though, I don't see it without major problems with atmospheric conditions. Yes, I read the wiki on the atmosphere and all that. I'm not convinced. I think there will be extreme problems with maintaining structural integrity especially if the anchor point is 1 mm.

edit: For example, I work around 60 to 80 feet off the ground every day. The amount of flexablility that the rig I work on daily at just that height would make some people hurl at the shaking and twisting that it does. I can't even imagine the flexability that you'd have to have at 100km above the earth.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:31 am

Really, there isn't any fundamental reason it needs to be secured to the ground. If they wanted to, they could design a space elevator that floats 1 foot off the ground. The benefits of securing it to the ground is that it doesn't wonder from a stationary point on earth. From the wiki, it could also be secured to a ship, so that if a storm moves in it could move to a safer place.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:52 am

speculation is more fun :icon25:

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:10 am

have they found a solution for the massive electrical currents running down that rope yet?

Post by **Canis** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:39 am

[FTF]Pyro wrote:
Tsakali_ wrote:now how the hell do you get the "rope" from earth to the counter-weight(or the other way around)
any ideas? not to mention that it will prolly end up having to be build in sections

fire a rocket into orbit, when its almost out of the stratosphere eject some sort of counter weight which will fall to earth, rocket reaches orbit object is still falling, towards earth

simple.

................^
................| ---- orbit point
................|
............... |
............... |
............. rocket -(ounter weight) (zero g)
................-- (stratosphere)
................-- (release point)
................|
................| ------- rope
................|
...............weight
................
................
................-- (Ground)

You spent a bit of time on that there graphic, didn't you?