|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Would a Space Elevator
http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html be a greater risk to human life per mission than the current space shuttle? While the risk of failure on any one trip would be less, when the rope breaks it'll wrap around the Earth and strike several cities rather than burning up a half dozen astronauts. -HJC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Henry J. Cobb wrote: Would a Space Elevator http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html be a greater risk to human life per mission than the current space shuttle? While the risk of failure on any one trip would be less, when the rope breaks it'll wrap around the Earth and strike several cities rather than burning up a half dozen astronauts. -HJC As light as the rope would have to be in comparison to its length to achieve its intended function, it would be about as devastating as a a nylon tow cable falling out of the sky ...remember that it's going to be at zero horizontal velocity in regards to any city it would fall on, assuming that it's going up to GEO. And considering that- of necessity- it's going to be on the Earth's equator.. it is in all likelihood going cause all of its harm in scaring the hell out of a lot of fish during its descent. Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Pat Flannery :
Henry J. Cobb wrote: Would a Space Elevator http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html be a greater risk to human life per mission than the current space shuttle? While the risk of failure on any one trip would be less, when the rope breaks it'll wrap around the Earth and strike several cities rather than burning up a half dozen astronauts. As light as the rope would have to be in comparison to its length to achieve its intended function, it would be about as devastating as a a nylon tow cable falling out of the sky ...remember that it's going to be at zero horizontal velocity in regards to any city it would fall on, assuming that it's going up to GEO. And considering that- of necessity- it's going to be on the Earth's equator.. it is in all likelihood going cause all of its harm in scaring the hell out of a lot of fish during its descent. Not even the many fish. The beanstalk that is close to Earth basicly fall straight down and lands near the anchor point. The stalk that is higher will hit so fast that it will burn up before it can reach the ground. Remember that most likely material to build a beanstalk from will be carbon. Earl Colby Pottinger -- I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos, SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: Pat Flannery flanne Not even the many fish. The beanstalk that is close to Earth basicly fall straight down and lands near the anchor point. Don't forget the jet stream winds- they will pull it sideways as it falls... I wonder how the designers are going to deal with the wind problem? The whole line could pick up a harmonic vibration as the wind flows past it. The stalk that is higher will hit so fast that it will burn up before it can reach the ground. Remember that most likely material to build a beanstalk from will be carbon. The math for what would happen to the falling line would be interesting to see- it would probably snap back quite violently when it broke, due to the tension it was under, and in vacuum the line's contraction wouldn't be slowed by air drag, so that the broken end might head earthwards at a considerable speed, due both to that initial velocity it gained as it snapped, and the acceleration of it's fall into the gravity well... an intriguing aspect of this is that as it fell it would be pulled by the weight of its lower sections in a pretty much straight line until the atmosphere slows it down, and then it might start collecting in a huge tangle in the upper atmosphere before finally falling to Earth. If it got up to enough velocity to burn up on reentry, that could be one amazing light show as it whipped about and burned for several hours as more and more line arrived. Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
(Henry J. Cobb) wrote in message . com...
Would a Space Elevator http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html be a greater risk to human life per mission than the current space shuttle? While the risk of failure on any one trip would be less, when the rope breaks it'll wrap around the Earth and strike several cities rather than burning up a half dozen astronauts. -HJC Uh, no. Liftport has a page of 'Frequent Misconceptions' @ http://www.liftport.com/pages/index....ge&pageID=1234 Statement: If it breaks, it will create a massive catastrophe all around the Earth. Q: How easy would it be to break? A: Very difficult. The planned position of the elevator avoids hurricanes, lightning and other extreme weather. The ribbon is engineered to be twice as strong as it needs to be to support itself and any planned cargo attached to it. Statement: It will wrap itself all the way around the Earth, destroying everything near the Equator. A: The majority, the long end out in space, gains enough speed that it burns up in the atmosphere, with the lower portion falling into the sea. Only a thousand kilometers or so will reach the surface, fluttering down with the force of a falling sheet of paper. Q: For the portion that doesn't burn up in a fall- what effect will it have on the environment? A: New York City tickertape parades have made bigger messes. Comparatively it will put much less dust, dirt, debris and chemicals into the environment than wildfires of the American west, any one of the large expendable rockets, or a month of natural meteors hitting Earth. The ribbon is light (7.5 kilograms per kilometer) so, any pieces that fall to earth will slow down, in the air, to about the same terminal velocity as that of an open newspaper page falling. It will not have enough momentum to cause mechanical damage when it comes down. We have considered other health risks such as inhalation of very small fragments and believe this will not be a problem but we are conducting studies to make sure this isn't a problem. Since we are aware of the possible problems now we can design the elevator to avoid these problems. Q: How large a wave/disturbance would it generate? A: The wave/disturbance would be nonexistent. As above, there just isn't enough mass, even in later, larger, ribbons, to generate such energy dispersion. There might be a small amount of light as a line in the sky as the ribbon burns up but after that it will be a few pieces of black film fluttering to Earth. Because of the size, distribution and winds, it is conceivable that only a few people would even see the event in any way and just as few would find actual pieces of the ribbon. Q: What would happen to the surviving portion? A: The ribbon that fell to Earth could be recovered for study but because of the amount and distribution it would be difficult to find many pieces. The pieces that do land would eventually degrade but not for a very long time. Keep in mind that this is mostly a stable form of carbon; it doesn't do anything. The debris would resemble long hair and would probably be broken up in interactions with animals, plants, wind, fish and waves. In fiber form it would be much too large to inhale and would probably work its way through a digestive system unaffected. The only debris we have any concern about is if it were reduced to nanotube size. This we don't understand yet so we will study this to see if there is a problem and then probably also design the ribbon to remain in larger pieces if it re-enters. The ribbon above the break, including the counterweight, would move slowly to a higher orbit, from which it may well be possible to recover it, splice a new section to the bottom, and fly it back down to the anchor. Q: What would happen to anything climbing the ribbon at the time it broke? A: The short answer is that some payloads will fall (below the break and below 24,000 km altitude), some will enter low orbit (below the break and between 24,000 km and GEO) and some will be tossed to high Earth orbit (above GEO) depending on where the payloads are and where the break is. However, what happens also depends on the reaction of the payload. In other words, what happens depends on lots of factors. Escape pods or re-entry vehicles may be required depending on designs. ~er |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
I was just curious about this whole space elevator situation. How
exactly would they get this nanotube attached from space to the ground. Would it be dropped in a way? Or flown up? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Aaron Desilet wrote: I was just curious about this whole space elevator situation. How exactly would they get this nanotube attached from space to the ground. Would it be dropped in a way? Or flown up? We use a spinning super conducting disk to generate an antigravity field, which then levitates the nanotubes upwards...no, wait... we dig a giant cannon barrel into the ground at the equator and with the aid of The Baltimore Gun Club, we shoot the upper end into geosynchronous orbit...no, wait...a flock of eagles on it's yearly migration to the Moon carries the...no,wait...we tie a bottle of dew to the end, and as the sun rises, it starts to pull...Baron Munchausen reaches down from the Moon and...as the cow jumps over the Moon, from each of her teats is suspended...with the aid of a flying squirrel and Upsidaisium we....an immense Teslanic tower is built...with the aid of Giant Stinkhorn genetic material, we mutate a Redwood tree in to a 25,000 mile high (this being the Supergiant Stinkwood).... Wait a minute... I've got it! First creating a wormhole with one end at the construction site for the string; and the other at the destination point for the nanotube line anchor point, we then attach the two with around three feet of heavy navel anchor chain; then, using the space suit equipped Giant Inchworm (now a Mileworm) created by the judicious use of recovered dinosaur DNA, we carry the cargo through the wormhole- and on to it's final destination. Not only does this solve the problem elegantly, but the giant worm can also be used to clear any pesky equatorial forests that may surround the space elevator construction site...and can lay a new organic space elevator cable each time it lowers itself back to Earth and the end of it's mission. If the worm becomes surely and uncooperative, we trick it into descending into Japan with the promise of tasty petite Bonsai arboriums...where it will not meet with perversely bred foot-high Redwood trees, but the unstoppable might of the Japanese Self Defense Force's legendary Giant Insect Divison...and after they have bravely sated its anger by being ground into red-as-the-rising-sun mush under its rampaging pseudopods- we call on those two six inch high Mothra girls to sing it into a restful torpor...then have Godzilla roast it like a weeny, and stomp it like a turd. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Thanks for the serious reply...how long did you spend writing all that
nonsense anyways? Pat Flannery wrote in message ... Aaron Desilet wrote: I was just curious about this whole space elevator situation. How exactly would they get this nanotube attached from space to the ground. Would it be dropped in a way? Or flown up? We use a spinning super conducting disk to generate an antigravity field, which then levitates the nanotubes upwards...no, wait... we dig a giant cannon barrel into the ground at the equator and with the aid of The Baltimore Gun Club, we shoot the upper end into geosynchronous orbit...no, wait...a flock of eagles on it's yearly migration to the Moon carries the...no,wait...we tie a bottle of dew to the end, and as the sun rises, it starts to pull...Baron Munchausen reaches down from the Moon and...as the cow jumps over the Moon, from each of her teats is suspended...with the aid of a flying squirrel and Upsidaisium we....an immense Teslanic tower is built...with the aid of Giant Stinkhorn genetic material, we mutate a Redwood tree in to a 25,000 mile high (this being the Supergiant Stinkwood).... Wait a minute... I've got it! First creating a wormhole with one end at the construction site for the string; and the other at the destination point for the nanotube line anchor point, we then attach the two with around three feet of heavy navel anchor chain; then, using the space suit equipped Giant Inchworm (now a Mileworm) created by the judicious use of recovered dinosaur DNA, we carry the cargo through the wormhole- and on to it's final destination. Not only does this solve the problem elegantly, but the giant worm can also be used to clear any pesky equatorial forests that may surround the space elevator construction site...and can lay a new organic space elevator cable each time it lowers itself back to Earth and the end of it's mission. If the worm becomes surely and uncooperative, we trick it into descending into Japan with the promise of tasty petite Bonsai arboriums...where it will not meet with perversely bred foot-high Redwood trees, but the unstoppable might of the Japanese Self Defense Force's legendary Giant Insect Divison...and after they have bravely sated its anger by being ground into red-as-the-rising-sun mush under its rampaging pseudopods- we call on those two six inch high Mothra girls to sing it into a restful torpor...then have Godzilla roast it like a weeny, and stomp it like a turd. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Aaron Desilet wrote: Thanks for the serious reply...how long did you spend writing all that nonsense anyways? About twenty minutes, which is about ten minutes longer than any Japanese force ever held out against a giant reptile. Really, I have a hard time taking this idea seriously, I've got a sneaking suspicion that it's nowhere near as simple as they are making it out to be to accomplish; but I believe the current plan is to build it in space, then lower it downwards from space into the Earth's atmosphe http://www.isr.us/SEConcept.asp?m=2 Goes into the basics of the project. Arthur C. Clarke thinks it will work, and will address the second annual conference on it from Sri Lanka: http://www.isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/ .....on the other hand Arthur C. Clarke also thinks that sea serpents exist, so a bit of skepticism might be in order in regards to this project. However, if a giant sea serpent _were_ to exist, and if it were to begin ravaging the Japanese whaling fleet down near Antarctica, then a space elevator could be used to lift the ecologically sound, but misguided as to it's tactics in the preservation of the world's cetaceans, creature to Monster Island- where, under the tutelage of Tadzilla, it could channel it's concerns for the world's sea life into less destructive ends...before inevitably leveling Tokyo. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Hi
"Aaron Desilet" wrote in message om... I was just curious about this whole space elevator situation. How exactly would they get this nanotube attached from space to the ground. Would it be dropped in a way? Or flown up? Read up the proposed system at: www.highliftsystems.com and www.liftport.com. Basically you deliver the initial cable to geo-synchronous orbit and lower it down to anchor station, and then have a climber take additional cables up. Simple, neat and effective. Regards Frank Scrooby |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OSP: reliability and survivability | Edwin Kite | Space Science Misc | 77 | September 26th 03 06:36 AM |
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later | Al Jackson | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 3rd 03 03:40 PM |
Is space over? | Tony Rusi | Space Science Misc | 0 | July 6th 03 12:40 PM |