|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
You are going to drop if from the sky?
Yes, exactly. Its easy to say, much harder to go into specifics. There are atleast 2 things which are left almost completely undescribed amongst space elevator "supporters". 1. The process before we have this massive cable under tension. 2. The lifting mechanism with a little more spesific analysis than "we use magnets ofcourse!". From these 2 points starts the branching of REAL problems of space elevators and how it might not be a magical way to get things cheaply to orbit. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Richard Lamb wrote: don't build it from the ground up; it's lowered from above (possibly one strand at a time rather than all at once), not raised from below. You are going to drop if from the sky? "Lower" it from the sky, please -- it will be supported at all times, from above. Then there's Sheffield's solution. Build the whole thing a long way away and put it in place in one go. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Andromeda et Julie wrote: imagine what impact such a material would have on architecture, bulding, bridges design .. etc ... Not to mention rocket design. A standard mistake made by many proponents of advanced launch schemes is to assume that they are competing against today's rockets, not against rockets which are given the same advantages as their scheme (billions of dollars invested, a steady flow of traffic guaranteed, significant technical advances made, etc.). Yup. Suppose, for example, such a material was used to make, say, pressure vessles that mught contain such things as, say, rocket propellants. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
Poliisi wrote in message ...
You are going to drop if from the sky? Yes, exactly. Its easy to say, much harder to go into specifics. There are atleast 2 things which are left almost completely undescribed amongst space elevator "supporters". 1. The process before we have this massive cable under tension. 2. The lifting mechanism with a little more spesific analysis than "we use magnets ofcourse!". The current answer to the last question isn't magnets but .. lasers. Free Electron lasers beam power to the climber, which converts the energy into mechanical energy (wheels or treads). IIRC, a FEL has been designed that can do the job. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
The current answer to the last question isn't magnets but .. lasers.
Free Electron lasers beam power to the climber, which converts the energy into mechanical energy (wheels or treads). IIRC, a FEL has been designed that can do the job. There's a lot of traffic in this thread about powering the climber. Why can't it simply have a diesel/gasoline engine with its own oxygen supply? Or run electrical cables up the elevator to power an electric motor? Why make things more complicated than they need to be? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
"Makhno" writes:
The current answer to the last question isn't magnets but .. lasers. Free Electron lasers beam power to the climber, which converts the energy into mechanical energy (wheels or treads). IIRC, a FEL has been designed that can do the job. There's a lot of traffic in this thread about powering the climber. Why can't it simply have a diesel/gasoline engine with its own oxygen supply? Or run electrical cables up the elevator to power an electric motor? Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Your proposal is not _totally_ implausible. The energy required to climb a beanstalk is only a small fraction of the energy required to accelerate a payload into Low Earth Orbit; the fuel and oxygen tankage required would be large, but not prohibitively so. -- Gordon D. Pusch perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;' |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
In article ,
Makhno wrote: There's a lot of traffic in this thread about powering the climber. Why can't it simply have a diesel/gasoline engine with its own oxygen supply? Because the mass of fuel and oxygen is prohibitive for a climb that long. Or run electrical cables up the elevator to power an electric motor? Transmitting useful amounts of electrical power thousands of kilometers *without* adding significant mass to the cable is extremely difficult. (The current near-term elevator designs have a total cable cross-section of about one square millimeter. They don't have enough strength margin to tolerate any significant increase in cross-section that doesn't add strength too.) Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Because they really do need to be that complicated. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
In article , Makhno
wrote: The current answer to the last question isn't magnets but .. lasers. Free Electron lasers beam power to the climber, which converts the energy into mechanical energy (wheels or treads). IIRC, a FEL has been designed that can do the job. There's a lot of traffic in this thread about powering the climber. Why can't it simply have a diesel/gasoline engine with its own oxygen supply? Or run electrical cables up the elevator to power an electric motor? Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Roughly, 1 kg of fuel and oxidizer has about 4 megajoule of energy, which is enough to lift 1 kg 400 km at 1g. Climbing out of the gravity well of Earth is comparable to climbing one Earth radius (6400 km) under a constant 1 g (there's probably a factor of 2 or 1/2 or something like that, but back-of-the-envelope). So it would take about 16 kg of fuel+oxidizer, give or take, to send 1 kg up the elevator. But you also have to carry the fuel to lift the fuel, and the fuel to lift the fuel to lift the fuel, and so on. Mathematically, you would have to carry e^16= 9 million kg of fuel+ox. (Factors of 2 or 1/2 at that point become very important.) Anyway, beaming the power becomes economical at that point. -- David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
David M. Palmer wrote: In article , Makhno wrote: The current answer to the last question isn't magnets but .. lasers. Free Electron lasers beam power to the climber, which converts the energy into mechanical energy (wheels or treads). IIRC, a FEL has been designed that can do the job. There's a lot of traffic in this thread about powering the climber. Why can't it simply have a diesel/gasoline engine with its own oxygen supply? Or run electrical cables up the elevator to power an electric motor? Why make things more complicated than they need to be? Roughly, 1 kg of fuel and oxidizer has about 4 megajoule of energy, which is enough to lift 1 kg 400 km at 1g. Climbing out of the gravity well of Earth is comparable to climbing one Earth radius (6400 km) under a constant 1 g (there's probably a factor of 2 or 1/2 or something like that, but back-of-the-envelope). So it would take about 16 kg of fuel+oxidizer, give or take, to send 1 kg up the elevator. But you also have to carry the fuel to lift the fuel, and the fuel to lift the fuel to lift the fuel, and so on. Mathematically, you would have to carry e^16= 9 million kg of fuel+ox. (Factors of 2 or 1/2 at that point become very important.) Anyway, beaming the power becomes economical at that point. I had always envisioned cars on perpetually cycling loops, like a ski lift. Much of the movement would be done by inertia with some energy spent to compensate for friction loss. -- Hop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Question on the space elevator
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Keith Harwood writes: Yup. Suppose, for example, such a material was used to make, say, pressure vessles that mught contain such things as, say, rocket propellants. For any reasonable strength of material, the amount of additional energy that can be stored by pressurizing the tanks is negligible compared to the chemical energy stored in the propellants themselves. About all you will do by pressurizing the tanks is to allow you to eliminate the mass of the turbopumps and drive turbines, which is likely to be marginal compared to the additional mass of high-pressure propellant tanks. Pressure-fed rockets _may_ be justifiable on the basis of lower cost or higher reliability, but are =VERY= unlikely to provide significantly better performance than pump-fed rockets. I was thinking that the unobtainium that had sufficient tensile strength with low mass to build a beanstalk could also be used to make pressure vessels that are very much lighter than those from presently existing materials and, indeed, would be lighter than existing unpressurised tanks. My consideration was the mass savings from no pumps and from the tankage itself. It hadn't occurred to me to even consider the energy stored in the pressurisation. My point was simply that the material that made the beanstalk feasible compared to conventional rocketry would help make rocketry more competitive against a beanstalk. (PS, sorry about the deplorable typing my previous post.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 04:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |