|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |