|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
(Aaron Desilet) wrote in message . com...
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? Go here - http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html - and read chapter 4: Deployment. Summary: An initial ribbon is launched on several Delta or Shuttle flights, and assembled in orbit. The biter end is gently wafted down from orbit to an anchor. This ribbon is capable of supporting itself, and not much else. From the anchor climbers ascend the ribbon, 'welding' more ribbon to give the needed taper and strength. 200 or so climbers later, you've got a cargo-bearing SE. Warning: this summary is of course lacking detail and may be grossly wrong on fine points. ~er |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
E.R. wrote: Summary: An initial ribbon is launched on several Delta or Shuttle flights, and assembled in orbit. The biter end is gently wafted down from orbit to an anchor. This ribbon is capable of supporting itself, and not much else. From the anchor climbers ascend the ribbon, 'welding' more ribbon to give the needed taper and strength. 200 or so climbers later, you've got a cargo-bearing SE. Warning: this summary is of course lacking detail and may be grossly wrong on fine points. Now that I've read more about it, the idea is actually beginning to appeal to me a bit...it certainly is a revolutionary approach, and that may be just what we need to accomplish our goals in space. Pat |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Interesting article from The Guardian on the concept.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spacedocum...041360,00.html "At about a third of the way along the cable - 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to complete a full orbit." Er, yes, around the sun at least. ;-) -HJC |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
(Henry J. Cobb) writes:
Interesting article from The Guardian on the concept. http://www.guardian.co.uk/spacedocum...041360,00.html "At about a third of the way along the cable - 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to complete a full orbit." Er, yes, around the sun at least. ;-) If he was able to know what he's writting about, he would be doing something else than journalism. -- __Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
Brilliant! But how could you leave out Mothra??? Mothra is the key to the
whole thing. Natural Light Black and White Photography http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/ -George- "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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?
geo wrote: Brilliant! But how could you leave out Mothra??? Mothra is the key to the whole thing. The Giant Mileworm will grow into a moth that will even dwarf Mothra given enough time.... and a place to put it's cocoon- say the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Then the aerial giant can be used to bring construction materials for future elevator sites to widely separated points on the Earth's equator as well as carry tourists on exotic sightseeing flights to areas normally inaccessible to airline traffic- say the North Pole. The real pay-off on this aspect of the operation is you can make a fortune when you reveal to the passengers that the ticket cost only covered the flight _to_ the exotic destination, and not the return from there... so you can either pony up around $10,000....or you had better hope that Santa is looking for some new workers; and that you are under five feet in height and look good dressed in green. Pat |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 If those multi-hundred billion dollar CNT tethers are unaffected by the Van Allen zone of death (little or no long term degrade from massive radiation plus solar maximum flux of just about everything nasty you can think of), unaffected by atmospheric jet-streams, able to dodge a thousand or so satellites and of another hundred thousand or so smaller debris items and, unaffected by whatever a few GJ worth of lighting strikes might induce and, above all else there's no Taliban running amuck, then by all means we'll be a whole lot safer off using the multi-trillion dollar ESE. BTW: I've added another one of those testy SE pages having something positive to do with that damn moon of ours, this time more specifically on the topic of the LSE lunar tether GPa, where I'm seriously wondering if any LSE tether even needs 3 GPa. As I learn more specifics from others (hopefully smarter than myself), I'll make those corrections and share whatever the outcome. http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-gpa.htm Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of the other LIFE on Venus LSE UPDATES: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 There's actually darn little contest here. Since the first prototype ESE isn't likely for a couple of decades, then mostly for continuing tether repairs and of delivering a few expendable robotic missions, as otherwise shuttle like craft will have to do the task of moving folks to/from space. Perhaps 5 decades from now we'll have those spendy (multi-trillion dollar) ESE(s) capable of doing the task instead of a shuttle craft. Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass. Though instead of focusing upon such a rather spendy ESE, or even the likes of a relatively cheap rotovator technology, how about reconsidering as a compromise upon a Lunar Space Elevator (LSE), that which could have been initially developed and deployed a decade ago? If the moon is mostly of basalt, as it perhaps should be, then of whatever bulk is required for sustaining humans in space, whether that's of simply mass for spacecraft shielding (abating radiation as well as improving impact resistance) or of EMPD propulsion fuel considerations, I believe this substance is in fact available from the moon, and of affordably accommodating such within the LSE-CM/ISS is perhaps just the ticket, as in right here and now, not of some horrifically spendy day decades from now and solely dependent upon those CNT fibers taking the heat as well as the radiation as well as whatever other solar flak, not to forget about the year after year of dodging a few hundred thousand other not so insignificant objects in it's path (add up the total ESE tether surface exposure and do the math). We can get ourselves to/from the moon rather quickly these days, thus a timeline of potentially lethal exposure to the mostly solar radiation has become somewhat limited, and thereby survivable within minimal shielding, as in terms of hours to perhaps a few days worth, unless of course you've got 341 g/cm of something surrounding your butt, as then you can tolerate some extended mission related travel time without having all of your DNA/RNA chopped into bits by various TBI worthy radiation issues, that's not even to mention significant erosion if not through-holes as a result of your impacting with a grain of sand, of which without sufficient shielding density is exactly where life as we know it becomes downright difficult, and/or subsequently where your own immune system proceeds to further irradicate yourself from within, whereas I believe there are known limits to what having banked bone marrow can achieve. I've learned that sending technology efficient robotic missions off into a lunar orbit is apparently a whole lot easier if not more energy efficient than establishing most any Earth GSO, of which I suppose that includes the likes of Earth L2 or L1, as those positions being more complicated and more energy and/or time consuming in order to establish, whereas as sending robotics off to visit a LSE-CM/ISS is not only efficiently doable but highly beneficial, especially once docked and/or snagged by the LSE-CM/ISS robotics and/or crew, as this is obviously where the final mission configuration outfitting could take place, as well as applied shielding of mostly moon dirt and/or basalt rock, and whatever refuel. What we can't seem to afford to deliver directly into space from Earth, at least not without creating great amounts of global warming CO2 for Earth, is that of any sufficient mass of radiation shielding, and/or of just offering sufficient physical shield density for surviving micro impacts that are more than a wee bit testy issues for human space flights, along with there being anything leftover for the likes of spare fuel, beer and pizza. Eventually, decades from now, after spending perhaps trillions, the ESE(s) will most likely become capable of accommodating those deliveries of such mass. Though most any ESE should be more efficient than rockets, the overall process still offers a significant CO2 impact for Earth, not to mention an ongoing maintenance, defense of and logistics fiasco along with a list of "what if's" that should keep all of us on our toes. This latest ESE/LSE report/argument needs a whole lot of work, as well as it could use your input plus lots more expertise, as well as medications on my behalf. Within this delivery, I'm discussing or at least attempting to convey upon the pro/con issues of the ESE/LSE, though obviously I'm thoroughly confused and disorientated as usual, as I can actually foresee others and even myself being snookered again, just like those grand old Apollo cold-war days, along with all the dog wagging on steroids, plus all of that being so nicely packaged into the sorts of top notch NASA/NOVA produced and/or moderated infomercials that'll knock your socks off. Since I'm no good at telling my stories, I may have to get myself back into this one, polish it up and otherwise continue to share in whatever I've learned, as well as sharing whatever warm and fuzzy favor returning that I can think of, as I'm certain of those opposing or silently playing along, or perhaps they're pretending at their playing "hide and seek" because, in reality these folks may actually be dumber than dumb (that's merely arrogance without being smart enough for realizing it), but obviously those folks would otherwise expect nothing less from my perspective. So, I'll keep trying to oblige. I've accomplished this effort as yet another of my poor deliveries on the PRO/CON issues of the ESE/LSE. Have yourself a look-see, a few laughs at the expense of humanity, then give me some of that "all knowing" feedback and even flak if that's all you've got. Of course, what's mostly in need are specific numbers, of doable "what ifs" and of whatever inventions you can devise upon, applicable for either the ESE or LSE. Actually the ESE needs a whole lot more help and of trillions more of your hard earned money than my LSE, but I'll certainly take whatever you've got, even if it's just ESE leftovers. PRO/CON ESE/LSE: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-ese-lse.htm Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / the discovery of other LIFE on Venus Besides way too many other topics, here's other ongoing LSE UPDATES: Basalt tether update: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-gpa.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-se-flywheels.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-elevator.htm |
|
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 |