A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space Elevator



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 2nd 07, 10:56 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Space Elevator

Of course... we've always got something in the way of our should-be top
priority. Think of what 330... something BILLION dollars would do for
the space industry? ****ing war... why can't people just look around
our worldly problems and stupid religious bickering.

I was once told by an old, smart guy that the percentage of "smart
people", as in the people who can just... think (you know?), make up
about 2% of the world. I think you guys know what I mean by "smart
people". I am truely starting to realize that the old man was right. We
live in a world filled with ****ing morons... even our own president,
governing the world's current leading super-power, is a complete idiot.

I have no doubt that there will be a WW-III, maybe if we are lucky we
will have proceeding digits. I think there could be something happening
with Iran. I swear to god that stubborn little ******* Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad acts just like a god damn 3 year old learning to say "no"
to his mother.

  #12  
Old January 3rd 07, 11:52 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
daedalus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Space Elevator

Trains struggle to go up a slight incline, so vertical will be a huge
problem, Jt takes a lot of energy to clinb vertically and only a relatively
small amount of energy to roll something horizontally,

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:a3da39e8be0920d7e25e510a4f8d7df7.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Danny Deger" wrote in message


We have trains that go 200 miles/hour. I would think a "train" going up
a
space elevator could go faster.


It should, and it must go faster (at least 100 m/s if not a full km/s),
that is unless it's delivering something inert, like pizza and beer.

Problem is, the spendy LiftPort ESE fiasco is exactly what it is. So,
what's to honestly argue about?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG



  #13  
Old January 4th 07, 04:09 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Space Elevator

"daedalus" wrote in message
.uk

Trains struggle to go up a slight incline, so vertical will be a huge
problem, Jt takes a lot of energy to clinb vertically and only a relatively
small amount of energy to roll something horizontally,


That's all very true, but since the SpacePort/LiftPort ESE fiasco of
godoffal spendy CNT application isn't likely to happen any time soon, at
least not within decades if ever, so what's the difference.

Isn't the first 9.8 m/s of vertical exit velocity in of itself doubling
the g force?

Where's the required energy for their accomplishing even 10 m/s, going
to come from?

At 100 m/s, each tonne of payload becomes worthy of 10+ tonnes of
required lifting force.

Each kgf = 9.80665 joules, x g x 1/eff plus whatever's friction related
(not including whatever critical horizontal navigation factors).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #14  
Old January 4th 07, 09:19 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Space Elevator

"Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X" wrote in message
ups.com

Isn't faith-based government wonderful, along with all the spendy
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent?

What do you know about station-keeping within MEL1(moon's L1)?

How much fly-by-rocket energy does it take for parking 10 tonnes of
whatever within that MEL1 sweet spot?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #15  
Old January 4th 07, 09:13 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Danny Deger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default Space Elevator


"daedalus" wrote in message
.uk...
Trains struggle to go up a slight incline, so vertical will be a huge
problem, Jt takes a lot of energy to clinb vertically and only a
relatively small amount of energy to roll something horizontally,


Good point. 200 MPH straight up would require some really big motors of
some type. I calculate going straightup fighting one G would take about
1,600 horsepower for a 3,000 lbm "capsule". I am not an expert, but this
looks to an amount that could be built into a space elevator.

Danny Deger

snip


  #16  
Old January 5th 07, 02:11 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Space Elevator


"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"daedalus" wrote in message
.uk...
Trains struggle to go up a slight incline,



Missed this post. Yes, trains "struggle" because they're smooth steel on
steel.

Look at a cog railway and they have no such problem.

so vertical will be a huge
problem, Jt takes a lot of energy to clinb vertically and only a
relatively small amount of energy to roll something horizontally,


Of course, you're comparing apples to oranges here.



Good point. 200 MPH straight up would require some really big motors of
some type. I calculate going straightup fighting one G would take about
1,600 horsepower for a 3,000 lbm "capsule". I am not an expert, but this
looks to an amount that could be built into a space elevator.


Definitely.



Danny Deger

snip



  #17  
Old January 6th 07, 09:56 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Pieter[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Space Elevator

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote
"daedalus" wrote in message
.uk...
Trains struggle to go up a slight incline,



Missed this post. Yes, trains "struggle" because they're smooth steel
on steel.

Look at a cog railway and they have no such problem.


Top speed on a cog railway is also less than a tenth the fastest for a
normal train.

Simple reason: lifting a mass against gravity requires a huge amount of
energy. Moving the same mass horizontally only requires that you match
the friction losses from the wheels & air resistance of movement.

One of the problems that the space elevator concept runs into is just
how to get the energy needed to lift the 'train' from the source to the
driving motor. Source is most likely a ground-based power grid. The
engine is climbing up a VERY tall structure, at times it will be many
thousands of miles from the base. The elevator cannot possibly bear the
mass of electric cables all along its length. Thus the power source for
the motor needs to be ON the moving train, or needs to be beamed to it
over rather great distances. Given mass limitations of the train, the
only feasible option is beaming the power there.

As of now, very long range beamed power systems are not even in their
infancy, we are still playing around with concepts only.

Its not a show stopper, but it most definately is a problem that will
have to be solved before we can even consider building a space elevator.

(the biggest show stopper is still the material strength requirement for
the cable itself. The best current fibres are only about a fifth as
strong per mass as needed to construct a space elevator. Carbon
Nanotubes might, just *might* be strong enough. The jury is still out on
that though, as the requisite length and purity of nanotube is still
very very very far beyond what we can manufacture today, even at lab
scale)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space elevator now possible? Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 141 January 21st 05 03:49 AM
space elevator Rod Mollise Amateur Astronomy 116 January 17th 04 09:31 PM
Space Elevator? Jorge R. Frank Space Shuttle 17 January 15th 04 01:10 AM
Space elevator Ben Klooterman Technology 1 October 17th 03 02:23 PM
Space elevator now po Jonathan Silverlight Astronomy Misc 4 August 15th 03 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.