A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 03, 04:30 AM
Henry J. Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 9th 03, 09:10 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 9th 03, 03:20 PM
Earl Colby Pottinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 9th 03, 04:35 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 10th 03, 04:35 AM
E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 11th 03, 01:45 AM
Aaron Desilet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 11th 03, 08:00 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 11th 03, 05:15 PM
Aaron Desilet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 11th 03, 07:20 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 11th 03, 10:55 PM
Frank Scrooby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 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.