But when one cord isn't enough, I use 2. Or 3, or 10 ... or 1000, or ... does the article have numbers? Not extremely difficult to find out how many strands are needed once their tensile strength is known.from the article:
... There is currently no identified material capable of withstanding these forces. This includes materials as strong as spider silk, Kevlar, or even the most resilient contemporary carbon fiber polymers.
That's it? No reason why? I'm ok with starting a thread to find out more about Mars missions.So this is as impossible as going to Mars.
I agree but I mean for prototypes, it might be easier to make first tests elsewhere. I had never imagined a space elevator somewhere else but on Earth and thought it was a neat image, whether sci-fi or real.A space elevator is by far most useful on Earth ...
What I do is I aim for the stars, and settle for a road trip.Don't know whether I'm being pessimistic or realistic or both...
Springs, dampers, etc. (of record-breaking sizes)One is that the Moon's orbit isn't perfectly circular. The eccentricity means that the distance to the Moon varies a bit. Also, the "face" of the Moon that faces the Earth wobbles around.
Not sure I understand. Is what you call a "liftport" on Earth or in orbit?Another is that a rendezvous of a ship from the Earth at the "Liftport" would be significantly more challenging than a rendezvous with another spacecraft, as the ship will require a steady engine thrust to maintain position, whereas the "Liftport" is restrained by the elevator tether.
Grid-scale batteries of course. People don't seem to know about this little secret yet. Should be automatic: Solar? Grid-scale batteries! Wind? Grid-scale batteries! Power control? Grid-scale batteries! Power distribution? Grid-scale batteries! Power in space? Batteries! Power deep in the ocean? Batteries! Power stabilization? Batteries! Etc.During the lunar night, there would be no solar power.
Not so bad so far: https://www.space.com/spinlaunch-aces-10th-suborbital-test-launchWhat I hope to see is a catapult of some sort (railgun or perhaps spin launch) to launch stuff off the surface of the Moon.
It's a 8 month trip there so you you need enough food water, and oxygen. Then once you get there you would need to leave as Mars and Earth only get close once every 2 1/2 years, then you need the previous things for the 8 month return trip, all in one spaceship. As one prominent scientist said, " the perfect suicide mission"That's it? No reason why? I'm ok with starting a thread to find out more about Mars missions.
It is on the diagram at point B.Not sure I understand. Is what you call a "liftport" on Earth or in orbit?
No one is going to be launching grid scale batteries into space.Grid-scale batteries of course.
She didn’t say how fast the elevator would travel along the tether. But, assuming the average speed is 100 mph (pretty fast for an elevator), it would take 10 1/2 weeks to get from the lift port to the surface of the moon. I’d take the rocket the whole way.It is on the diagram at point B.
Every prominent scientist currently working on space and mars missions have known this since they were kids.It's a 8 month trip there so you you need enough food water, and oxygen. Then once you get there you would need to leave as Mars and Earth only get close once every 2 1/2 years, then you need the previous things for the 8 month return trip, all in one spaceship. As one prominent scientist ...
If it's the weight you're concerned about, remember a battery is short for a battery of cells. The bigger things can be built rather than carried as a whole. But you're welcome to check out the max lifting capacities of the heavier lifters.No one is going to be launching grid scale batteries into space.
Thanks.It is on the diagram at point B.
These are all problems, but there is no reason to assume that no solution exists for them. A very obvious at least partial solution is to grow plants aboard the spacecraft to recycle the carbon dioxide into oxygen and provide food. The ISS has already demonstrated 93% recovery of used water. We may not be ready now, but as the various issues are retired, we may be ready for the Mars mission in the coming decades.It's a 8 month trip there so you you need enough food water, and oxygen. Then once you get there you would need to leave as Mars and Earth only get close once every 2 1/2 years, then you need the previous things for the 8 month return trip, all in one spaceship. As one prominent scientist said, " the perfect suicide mission"
That is one of the reasons that the US would not do this. Unless, of course, they suddenly found a solid-gold asteroid or something that made the corporate/political eyes bug out.Prfesser, even if it were possible to build such a thing, it would be such a long term project that our politicians and corporate leaders wouldn't have the fortitude or vision to let it be built. It'll take longer than an election cycle to build, and I can't picture many corporate types (other than Elon Musk, maybe), being willing to make such an long term investment. They mostly live and die by their quarterly profits after all.
i read somewhere that a single microscopic flaw in a carbon nanotube reduces the tensile strength by 70%. last i checked we couldn't make a bar of soap purer than 99.44. how long would such a project take? gotta be generations, right? how many millions of acres would the site for the base need to be? how would you displace the people living in that area? As pointed out already, it's not just the tech keeping an elevator from happening, it's the scale. this ain't happening any time soon. pipe dream (*rimshot).
The space elevator this student is proposing is based on the Moon, not the Earth, so the gravitational forces are much less and the strength of the tether is in the realm of "doable." However, that doesn't mean that her idea is practical. Construction would require all materials to be launched from the Earth to the L1 point, almost all the way to the Moon. This would be cost prohibitive. Then, in operation, any cargo destined for the Moon would still need to be launched from the Earth to beyond geostationary orbit. I see no practical benefit.from the article:
"For decades, an array of physicists, authors of science fiction, and dreamers have eagerly computed the magnitude of these forces. However, the resulting calculations have consistently led to disappointment. There is currently no identified material capable of withstanding these forces. This includes materials as strong as spider silk, Kevlar, or even the most resilient contemporary carbon fiber polymers.
So this is as impossible as going to Mars.
The space elevator this student is proposing is based on the Moon, not the Earth, so the gravitational forces are much less and the strength of the tether is in the realm of "doable." However, that doesn't mean that her idea is practical. Construction would require all materials to be launched from the Earth to the L1 point, almost all the way to the Moon. This would be cost prohibitive. Then, in operation, any cargo destined for the Moon would still need to be launched from the Earth to beyond geostationary orbit. I see no practical benefit.
I thought the idea was that the orbital anchor was placed beyond geosynchronous orbit so it would be pulling on the tether, therefore would maintain tension in the tether even when a payload was climbing it. And tension in the tether could even out orbital inconsistencies.even assuming in theory the ground anchor was placed precisely on the equator and the orbital anchor was in a precisely geosynchronous orbit and the problems of minor orbital inconsistencies and eccentricities
Yes, you would need to do that. There's significant weight in the tether itself that needs to be counteracted/counterbalanced so obviously that can't be achieved by something in free orbital equilibrium. Yes, a fraction of that weight is countered with centrifugal force of the tether itself, but not all of it.I thought the idea was that the orbital anchor was placed beyond geosynchronous orbit so it would be pulling on the tether, therefore would maintain tension in the tether even when a payload was climbing it. And tension in the tether could even out orbital inconsistencies.
Yeah you wouldn't want 30,000 miles of cable falling on your head.your orbital cable would constantly be subject to impacts from other objects (ie space junk) in inferior orbits with relative speeds of several thousand mph to the cable, the cable could probably survive hits from stuff like paint chips and sand grains, the first time you hit a 2 meter long piece of metal weighing 100 kg, it's hasta la vista to your elevator cable.
The argument there is that such a facility would be built within a large exclusion zone (10, 20, 100 or more miles) beyond which the cable would be expected to burn up on re-entery.Yeah you wouldn't want 30,000 miles of cable falling on your head.
Enter your email address to join: