steel cable as an alternative for the space elevator?

Why exactly is our resident spook/mole "MI5 Persecution" getting so
gosh darn upset, as in Usenet postal (aka, bent out of shape) about
the sorts of good and decent folks sharing ideas along with the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?

- Brad Guth


On Nov 3 2007, 10:08 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:46 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Oct 31, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:

Instead of any spendy CNT elevator fiasco that may never affordably
get off the ground (sort of speak), or much less directly accommodate
humans, perhaps this terrestrial high rise alternative isn't something
intended for the Emirate of Dubai, but you may have to be as rich and
powerful in order to qualify.

LEOHighRise Agricultural, Industrial, Office and Condos (starting at
$1000/sf + 1% annual member fees)

The minimum crushing strength of basalt at 400 kg/cm2 and of sandstone
rocks at 300 kg/cm2 would suggest that a100milehigh structure of
10:1 ratio, as having an 11milesquare base and onemilesquare top/
roof of an openLEOaccess surface could be supported by the average
crust of Earth. Basalt having a mechanical compressive strength of
1600 kg/cm2 is simply what the upper most surface loading limitations
would be. BTW, processed basalt ceramics can even exceed 6400 kg/cm2.

According to government and thus geological engineering certified
numbers in everyday structural usage, the hard rock crust of Earth can
(in most locations) sustain 200 tonnes/m2 worth of surface or
foundation loading (some terrestrial engineering expertise suggesting
as great as 400 tonnes/m2 as safely doable). Obviously there are more
than a few thin crust and/or geothermal affected areas that simply
should not be constructed upon, and even a few somewhat iffy sites
regardless of the intended surface loading should obviously be avoided
at all cost, especially if there's nearby lava emerging from time to
time, meaning that Iceland might not represent such a good foundation
for situating this100mileHighRise UN Condo.

Are there any brave or crazy and enough rich takers? If so, I'll need
your 10% in advance.
- Brad Guth -

On Nov 1, 4:00 pm, "Don" wrote:

1 question.
As the cost of going vertical increases exponentially as the building
ascends what is the reason for doing so as compared to the mostly linear
cost of going sideways, parallel with the earths surface?
At100miles above the earth the view will be mostly boring.
Stunning for the first 30 minutes, and then boring.
So I don't see *view* as having much saleability here, at least on the
topmost levels.
Below say, 10,000 feet, probably, but over that and there's not much to
see....just clouds.

I believe that's worth a whole lot more than one question, and I'd say
loaded to boot. However, it's not just about thoseLEOcondo views.
Most folks with terrific condo views as is don't hardly spend any
amount of their life looking out those spendy condo windows anyway.
So, you are correct that a given "*view* as having much saleability"
isn't all there is to behold. Some of us just like or rather insist
upon being on top of everyone else, regardless of the consequences or
the added cost. Remember that I'd said "starting at $1000/sf", and
that's not necessarily or all that likely for an outside view
accessible unit. Interior units (the vast majority) would only have
those large HDTV plasma screens instead of actual view windows.

Besides, the first lot of 454 floors is below 10,000', and those are
of the much larger area floors to start with. Remember that our top
floor is only amilesquare, and that the bottom floor is 11 miles
square. Do the math, and you tell me which condo floor you'd pick,
and be willing to pay those big bucks for. Obviously we'll still have
those many extra thousands of floors past the 454 mark, as for those
the amount of available outside O2 gets noticeably less, and at some
perfectly rational point there would no longer be those outside patio/
veranda decks associated with your private condo, and none of those
windows would open unless there some kind of insurmountable emergency
to deal with.

I'm not suggesting that potential condo owners should apply for those
floors above 454, as there are many perfectly valid reasons besides O2
for staying below the treeline (sort of speak). However, the Andes,
Bolivia tree line is at 17,000' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tree_line "Western Cordillera; highest treeline in the world on the
slopes of Sajama Volcano (Polylepis tarapacana)", and perhaps that
makes floor 772 potentially viable for having windows that still open,
and for offering that outside promenade deck for those of us that
simply can't get enough of those Winter Olympics. Above the mount
Everest dead zone level of 25,000'(floor 1136) is not even an option
of offering anything exterior unless you're wearing a spacesuit,
although we could always sponsor naked death climbing events for a
little extra extreme survivor entertainment.
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My sub-topic entro mistake, as what we seem to have within our warm
and fuzzy usenet land of traditional denial and naysayism, is more
like having to survive a bloody swarm mindset of village idiot clowns
in a terrestrial limited box, of such all-knowing folks that are
seemingly deathly afraid to revise anything, much less for breaking
wind within their all-knowing box of mainstream status quo assumptions
without first obtaining some kind of polished faith-based/NASA
authority. In spite of their mindset and subsequent naysay gauntlet,
I'd have to argue on behalf of a viable biosphere analogy for
accomplishing most anything off-world (such as on behalf of us humans
and our frail DNA doing Mars or even that of our extremely massive and
nearby moon) needs to be fully proof-tested to work right here in good
old River City (sort of speak), before we even think of accomplishing
any such things off-world, and as of lately getting especially
important if we have to accept that so many of us can't manage to
affordably survive Earth as is, is exactly what I believe excludes our
DNA from most all that's off-world. A compromise but valuable effort
towards resolving many unknowns would be a vertical biosphere like
structured environment that's starting off essentially below ground
and reaching for the stars.

Instead of our sticking with the usual gauntlet of usenet naysayism
and required denial that so many of you kind folks are likely to form
into another one of your mainstream swarm like mindsets, of often
insuring a closed anti-think-tank analogy, whereas perhaps instead of
accepting ourLEOrealm as being limited to our ISS and otherwise
mostly robotic stuff that's continually zooming in orbit, whereas
instead this extremely high rise structure is simply reaching its GSS
top floor into the100milehigh realm or path of all those fast
movingLEOsatellites, is at least of what's technically doable, and
besides we seem to need a whole lot more AGW protected and energy
efficient housing anyway.

ThisLEOExtreme HighRise condo is perhaps actually somewhat of a well
grounded GSO condo, mostly because of its substantial foundation that
has sort of fully tethered its entire high rise self as being
extremely well connected to one specific location on Earth (that
location could be ourmilehigh Denver, or the soon to be ice free and
dry rock of Greenland or even central Antarctica). Therefore,
technically it's really a fully terrestrial GSO condo that's merely
having reached its top floor that's only into the100milehight of
ourLEOrealm, that's somewhat CSS/GSO parked itself within a less
than nano portion of theLEOrealm of space. Just because of those
good intended but out-of-context folks like Jerry Steiger, I'll have
to change the name fromLEOcondo to GSO or GSS condo (sorry about
that, now I'm confused).

BTW, I've already explained about a few of those viable methods of
safely launching stuff away from the top deck, though not that such
was ever the primary function of this tall structure. However, I
suppose the the 16+ meter diameter core elevator of this high rise
could technically deposit a Saturn V or larger rocket to the top
floor.

First off, unless you are only 5 years old, it's not any of your hard
earned loot that'll get spent, and secondly why the hell not go for
the stars (flat/horizontal structures are rather dull and boring, tall
is rather fascinating, as well as rich and powerful looking), whereas
I can think of all sorts of nifty advantages once this extremely tall
tower of power and as such being so well populated with mostly the
rich and powerful gets with their usual program of global and localLEOspace domination, as for being almost as well off as what China
and India are going to accomplish with their LSE-CM/ISS (our moon's L1
only space depot/gateway and to/from moon surface elevators) plus
having that tethered dipole element that'll safely reach and sustain
whatever they'd like to within 2r of mother Earth.

Terrestrial toLEOcondos (actually GSS / Geo Syncro Structure):100miles tall / 24,000 floors (possibly 27,000 usable floors)
Foundation of 11.1 mile2 and 528' deep (21 floors within)
11 mile2 = 28.49e6 m2 / 2 = 14.245e6 m2
1 mile2 (top/roof floor) = 2.59e6 m2

14.245 + 2.59 = 16.835 * .9 = 15.15e6 m2 avg usable area per floor

24,000 * 15.15e6 = 363.6e9 m2 of net usable interior

Those 21 extra floors of robust foundation accommodated floor space
offers 550e6 m2 -(reactors and other misc infrastructure) = 400e6 m2

363.6e9 + .4e9 = 364e9m2 of net usable interior.

So, HighRise interior having excluding infrastructure and lots of
other stuff, indicates that we'll likely still have better than 360e9
m2

BTW, if using 27,000 floors would push that net usable interior floor
space to better than 400e9 m2

With lots of architectural and engineering alternatives inside and
out, there's any number of possible outcomes for safely ...

read more »