|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
Brian Davis skreiv:
I always find it humorous that when talking about very tall, space- elevator-style constructions, the terrifying jet stream always seems to pop up. For a structure in compression 150 km high, any minor force exerted by the wind below 10 km is literally going to be like a high- velocity wind directed at my ankles: locally something to be concerned about, but not a factor for the tower. It's sillier than that even. Because wind-load scales proportionally to diameter, more or less, this means larger structures are less influenced by wind than small structures. If you make a tower that is 10 times as large in every direction, then the wind-load is also (on the order of) 10 times as large, (assuming the wind only hits the lower X kilometres of it) however the cross-section, influencing strength and stiffness, is 100 times as large. We're talking a tower that is 10kmx10km on the lower part here, it's gigantic. I'm fairly sure wind-load is completely down in the noise for such a structure. Eivind |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
YKhan skreiv:
Diamond is not anymore or less worthless than gravel is, until you mix gravel into concrete. Or sand is worthless until you melt it into computer chip wafers. But diamond as simply a pretty thing to wear? Worthless. I'm confused now. Could you please explain what, precisely, you mean when you say that something has 'value' ? (I'm assuming that by 'worthless' you mean 'of zero or very low value') Eivind |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Diamonds are already a commodity, except we weren't allowed to know. There is no reason why anyone should worship this worthless shiny stone. This stone whose most useful purpose is as a material for cutting and abrading equipment. Until we can find ways of harnessing degenerate matter from dwarf stars or neutron stars, it's our hardest known material. *wrong* google Rhenium Diboride, its *HARDER* ;-) |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
Erik Max Francis wrote:
:YKhan wrote: : : Sure, that's why I said "until" which has an implied "if" in there. : Anyways, I can see even unstable degenerate matter as useful, if only : as concentrated explosives that can blow a hole through any normal : matter. This stuff should pack more energy than either nuclear fission : or fusion, but less than matter-antimatter reactions. : :Now you're talking about something else; earlier you said they would :"hard." Degenerate matter has no "hardness." It's dense because there :is a huge amount of mass compacting it into a degenerate state. That :mass doesn't give it hardness, it just makes it dense. Hardness and :density are not the same thing. : For an every day example of this, look at lead (or gold). Both quite dense. Both quite soft. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
On Dec 17, 1:25 am, Eivind wrote:
Brian Davis skreiv: I always find it humorous that when talking about very tall, space- elevator-style constructions, the terrifying jet stream always seems to pop up. For a structure in compression 150 km high, any minor force exerted by the wind below 10 km is literally going to be like a high- velocity wind directed at my ankles: locally something to be concerned about, but not a factor for the tower. It's sillier than that even. Because wind-load scales proportionally to diameter, more or less, this means larger structures are less influenced by wind than small structures. If you make a tower that is 10 times as large in every direction, then the wind-load is also (on the order of) 10 times as large, (assuming the wind only hits the lower X kilometres of it) however the cross-section, influencing strength and stiffness, is 100 times as large. We're talking a tower that is 10kmx10km on the lower part here, it's gigantic. I'm fairly sure wind-load is completely down in the noise for such a structure. Eivind Correct. as like a mountain, it'll create it's own weather. ~ BG |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
In rec.arts.sf.science BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:14 pm, Michael Ash wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science BradGuth wrote: On Dec 16, 12:37 pm, Michael Ash wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science Brian Davis wrote: On Dec 15, 8:20?pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: At around 10-15 km up, they will be contending against the Jet Stream, sometimes reaching upto 400 km/h. I always find it humorous that when talking about very tall, space- elevator-style constructions, the terrifying jet stream always seems to pop up. For a structure in compression 150 km high, any minor force exerted by the wind below 10 km is literally going to be like a high- velocity wind directed at my ankles: locally something to be concerned about, but not a factor for the tower. And for tensional (conventional) space elevators, it's even sillier: you build them at the equator, and their minimum cross-section is down in the "turbulent ten" lowest kilometers. Besides which, there is no jet stream at the equator. Sigh... invoking non-applicable threats into situations where they wouldn't matter much anyway really doesn't inspire confidence in the line of reasoning. I think people also forget about the effect of atmospheric density. Jet streams are fast but they aren't all *that* strong. They're very high and therefore are in very thin air, which substantially reduces the force that they will impart to anything they encounter. Typical skyscrapers are built to withstand hurricane-force winds, which happen at sea level and are therefore more forceful. Those winds also act along the entire height of the skyscraper instead of just some small portion, which as you point out makes them even less significant. Spooks, moles and MIB of the mainstream status quo have license to kill. That's, er, fascinating, but what's it got to do with jet streams or space towers or, well, *anything*? A space tower or much less my LSE-CM/ISS doesn't fit into that box of yours, does it. If some outsider is rocking that mainstream boat, the first thing folks tend to do is send in the clowns, and if that doesn't work they release those pesky MIB. Oh I get it, you think I sent the spooks after you to shut you up! How quaint? Don't you crazy people ever come up with anything *new*? By the way, while you're being crazy, do you think you could stop quoting my signature? It looks silly and serves no useful purpose. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Rock Brentwood wrote: It was built in the vicinity of a large volcano, called Mount Doom, and its construction was said to lead directly to a profusion of languages (hence the alternate designation 'Babel'), including Elvish, Orcish, Entish, and the other languages accounted for in the latter- day trilogy. From that day onward, people have looked upon the notion of a tower reaching the heavens with fear and trepidation. I'm sure we can handle a couple hundred more languages. :-) Wow, handling a couple hundred more languages amazing! Watakushi wa, go gengo ga muzukashi desu*. Parfois je męle différentes langues**. Ciň puň fare confusione†. Ich könnte hundert Sprache nie beherrschen††. :-) * Me, I have trouble with five. ** Sometimes I mix different languages. † That can bring some confusion. †† I could never handle a hundred language. Alain Fournier |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
On Dec 17, 7:51*am, Michael Ash wrote:
Oh I get it, you think I sent the spooks after you to shut you up! How quaint? Don't you crazy people ever come up with anything *new*? By the way, while you're being crazy, do you think you could stop quoting my signature? It looks silly and serves no useful purpose. The funny thing is, you're serious. I have a few zingers, but what's the point? Do you have any idea how much of our hard earned public loot per second (including inflation) is getting used as mainstream toilet paper? ~ BG |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Can we now build the "space tower"?
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:51 am, Michael Ash wrote: Oh I get it, you think I sent the spooks after you to shut you up! How quaint? Don't you crazy people ever come up with anything *new*? By the way, while you're being crazy, do you think you could stop quoting my signature? It looks silly and serves no useful purpose. The funny thing is, you're serious. I have a few zingers, but what's the point? They probably mention "MIB" again, which is exactly the point. -- Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis It's funny when you think about it / How coincidence rules -- Anggun |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can we now build the "space tower"? | Robert Clark | Policy | 154 | January 2nd 09 07:27 AM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
the "magical" Space forums that make MY "unfeasible" and "non | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | August 27th 08 12:04 PM |
a NEW comparison image CLEARLY shows HOW MUCH my "underside-LAS"is BETTER than ANY Orion's tower-LAS | gaetanomarano | Policy | 18 | June 10th 08 02:02 PM |
The Orion's "Eiffel Tower" LAS | gaetanomarano | Policy | 2 | April 22nd 08 01:45 PM |