![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-06-10 2:16 PM, Scott Kozel wrote:
It would be possible for the Moon today, given its much lower gravity. Given its very slow rotation, a geosynchronous anchor would not work, but they could use one of the Moon's LaGrange points. You're thinking a fuel depot? Water pumped up from the surface to the anchored depot at L1 or L2? Micro-gravity available when docked? Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:
On 2020-06-10 2:16 PM, Scott Kozel wrote: It would be possible for the Moon today, given its much lower gravity. Given its very slow rotation, a geosynchronous anchor would not work, but they could use one of the Moon's LaGrange points. You're thinking a fuel depot? Water pumped up from the surface to the anchored depot at L1 or L2? Micro-gravity available when docked? I wasn't advocating or opposing a Moon space elevator, just saying that it is technologically feasible with today's materials. I read somewhere that a Mars space elevator is technologically feasible with today's materials, but I am not sure about that. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun/10/2020 at 18:35, Scott Kozel wrote :
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote: On 2020-06-10 2:16 PM, Scott Kozel wrote: It would be possible for the Moon today, given its much lower gravity. Given its very slow rotation, a geosynchronous anchor would not work, but they could use one of the Moon's LaGrange points. You're thinking a fuel depot? Water pumped up from the surface to the anchored depot at L1 or L2? Micro-gravity available when docked? I wasn't advocating or opposing a Moon space elevator, just saying that it is technologically feasible with today's materials. I read somewhere that a Mars space elevator is technologically feasible with today's materials, but I am not sure about that. An Earth space elevator is technologically feasible with today's material. See for instance space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/2000-Space-Elevator-NIAC-phase1.pdf that's a little old, but materials available 20 years ago should be available now. It would be too expensive, but technically, it is doable. Costs estimates in that report are of $40B (page 11.4), but I would say the author is a little optimistic, not ridiculously so, but a little optimistic. On Mars, I'm not sure how one would solve the problem caused by the low orbiting moons but I think it would be doable. Anyway, for the time being, the traffic from Mars surface to Mars orbit is too low to justify the cost, whatever that cost would be :-) Alain Fournier |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-06-10 7:46 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
An Earth space elevator is technologically feasible with today's material. See for instance space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/2000-Space-Elevator-NIAC-phase1.pdf Interesting, will take a look, thanks. Reformatted for one-click... https://space.nss.org/wp-content/upl...IAC-phase1.pdf Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-06-11 1:44 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 2020-06-10 7:46 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: An Earth space elevator is technologically feasible with today's material. See for instance http://space.nss.org/wp-content/uplo...IAC-phase1.pdf OK I've read through Chapter 2. There are a lot of if's here. I would judge this as written as currently feasible without further study. The good news is that at the time of writing of this paper in 2000 where lengths of carbon nanotubes were only in a few centimeters, such results have been subsumed by newer research ([1], 2013) that have produced a length of 50 centimeters. So work is progressing, but to say it's feasible is still a "stretch", pun intended. There have been more recent papers published on the NSS website he https://space.nss.org/space-elevator-library/ I'll have to take a look and see what progress has been made since 2000. The 2000 Edwards paper shows promise and consideration but in and of itself is not convincing. Also I take some issue with the need to use a ground laser / climber solar arrays to power climbers if the cable itself has unique electrical conductivity. Save some effort here? Dave [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nn401995z |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2020-06-11 2:25 PM, David Spain wrote:
There are a lot of if's here. I would judge this as written as [not] currently feasible without further study. Sorry bad typo. Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The 'nail' in the Space Elevator coffin might not have actually ANYTHING
to do with the technical feasibility of building one, but that the environment that it would operate within has become too hostile! Scott Kozel posted about the hazards of aircraft hitting the cable, but a far more likely scenario will be a member of a LEO satellite constellation, such as Starlink or one of it many competitors that may be launched. Having an entire constellation of thousands of low Earth orbiting satellites may very well present too much of a challenge to have one stable ribbon cable extending vertically across the orbital planes of these constellations at the Earth's Equator. The orbital pathways of Starlink look far more like a weave than a circle. Requiring frequent and potentially costly moves of an Earth-side anchor even if it were designed to be mobile from the get go. A further design complication. This may render the entire concept moot. Like setting up a lemonade stand in the middle of an eight lane superhighway! So if this ever happens, maybe Moon or Mars will be the first, even if technically doable on Earth! Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"David Spain" wrote in message ...
The 'nail' in the Space Elevator coffin might not have actually ANYTHING to do with the technical feasibility of building one, but that the environment that it would operate within has become too hostile! Scott Kozel posted about the hazards of aircraft hitting the cable, but a far more likely scenario will be a member of a LEO satellite constellation, such as Starlink or one of it many competitors that may be launched. Having an entire constellation of thousands of low Earth orbiting satellites may very well present too much of a challenge to have one stable ribbon cable extending vertically across the orbital planes of these constellations at the Earth's Equator. The orbital pathways of Starlink look far more like a weave than a circle. Requiring frequent and potentially costly moves of an Earth-side anchor even if it were designed to be mobile from the get go. A further design complication. This may render the entire concept moot. Like setting up a lemonade stand in the middle of an eight lane superhighway! I've seen suggestions that issues like this be solved in part by imparting a "wave" in the cable to move it around as needed. Considering our extremely limited experience with tethers and the failures and problems, I suspect this is far from trivial. So if this ever happens, maybe Moon or Mars will be the first, even if technically doable on Earth! There's a couple of other issues that need to be addressed: Monoatomic Oxygen - Any materials will need to take this into account. Voltage differentials between orbits. Dave -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Allow me to refresh your memory:
On 2020-06-10 7:46 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: On Jun/10/2020 at 18:35, Scott Kozel wrote : On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:28:39 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote: On 2020-06-10 2:16 PM, Scott Kozel wrote: It would be possible for the Moon today, given its much lower gravity.Â* Given its very slow rotation, a geosynchronous anchor would not work, but they could use one of the Moon's LaGrange points. You're thinking a fuel depot? Water pumped up from the surface to the anchored depot at L1 or L2? Micro-gravity available when docked? I wasn't advocating or opposing a Moon space elevator, just saying that it is technologically feasible with today's materials. I read somewhere that a Mars space elevator is technologically feasible with today's materials, but I am not sure about that. An Earth space elevator is technologically feasible with today's ---- emphasis mine material. See for instance space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/2000-Space-Elevator-NIAC-phase1.pdf that's a little old, but materials available 20 years ago should be available now. It would be too expensive, but technically, it is doable. Costs estimates in that report are of $40B (page 11.4), but I would say the author is a little optimistic, not ridiculously so, but a little optimistic. On Mars, I'm not sure how one would solve the problem caused by the low orbiting moons but I think it would be doable. Anyway, for the time being, the traffic from Mars surface to Mars orbit is too low to justify the cost, whatever that cost would be :-) Alain Fournier |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 8:29:45 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:
Allow me to refresh your memory: On 2020-06-10 7:46 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: On Jun/10/2020 at 18:35, Scott Kozel wrote : I wasn't advocating or opposing a Moon space elevator, just saying that it is technologically feasible with today's materials. I read somewhere that a Mars space elevator is technologically feasible with today's materials, but I am not sure about that. An Earth space elevator is technologically feasible with today's ---- emphasis mine material. See for instance space.nss.org/wp-content/uploads/2000-Space-Elevator-NIAC-phase1.pdf that's a little old, but materials available 20 years ago should be available now. It would be too expensive, but technically, it is doable. Costs estimates in that report are of $40B (page 11.4), but I would say the author is a little optimistic, not ridiculously so, but a little optimistic. On Mars, I'm not sure how one would solve the problem caused by the low orbiting moons but I think it would be doable. Anyway, for the time being, the traffic from Mars surface to Mars orbit is too low to justify the cost, whatever that cost would be :-) Alain Fournier OK, where are the experiments that would support that a 60,000 mile long carbon nanotube cable can be made thin enough to not exceed feasible weight limits, and be able to support the transport cab? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; superfluid heliumbehaviour #368 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 12th 11 08:08 AM |
Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity; Ida & Dactyl #367Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 11th 11 08:10 PM |
Micro gravity and long duration flights. | Brian Gaff | Space Station | 1 | April 21st 09 12:22 PM |
Trying to fit gravity in the Micro | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 4 | July 22nd 07 01:04 PM |
Article: Macro, not micro: modified theories of gravity [Dark troubles?] | Robert Karl Stonjek | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 18th 07 01:48 AM |